Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only aggregation operation (no modification implied), but it does not explicitly state side effects, safety, or that it is non-destructive. For a simple aggregation tool this is adequate, but the lack of explicit statements leaves some ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action ('aggregate') and scope ('across the whole board'), then provides specific output details ('tier split and which proof sources are actually used'). Every element earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good understanding of what the tool does and what it returns. It names the two key output dimensions (tier split and proof source usage). However, the exact return format is unspecified, which could leave an agent uncertain about the response structure, though the description gives a reasonable expectation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything (100% coverage). The description correctly omits parameter details, and there is nothing to add beyond what the empty schema provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: aggregating verification data across the entire board, specifying the exact aspects (tier split and proof source usage). The verb 'aggregate' and resource 'verification data' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on verification data rather than board activity or product signals.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when verification stats are needed) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like board_this_week and product_signals are not mentioned, so an agent must infer the appropriate context rather than being given clear routing instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.