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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose what the tool returns and that it supports optional scoping, which is meaningful. But it does not mention output format, default filter behavior (e.g., status defaulting to 'in_permitting'), or whether results are returned as a single object, so coverage is adequate but not rich.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that names the result metrics before the scoping option. Every clause earns its place and there is no repetition of schema details or filler.

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 read-only aggregate tool with seven fully documented optional parameters, the description supplies the output metrics and scoping relationship to search_projects. Without an output schema, it could note the return shape or default scoping more explicitly, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly based on the information given.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all seven parameters. The description adds only the high-level note that filters match search_projects, which is useful context but not additional parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a specific resource (aggregate numbers for the WaitingForPower dataset), and lists the exact metrics returned: project count, capacity waiting, clean-energy capacity waiting, and estimated investment waiting. It also distinguishes itself from search_projects by framing this tool as the aggregate counterpart to that filterable search tool.

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 phrase 'optionally scoped by the same filters as search_projects' clearly signals that this tool is for aggregate statistics rather than project-level lookup and ties it to the sibling search tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_projects or provide exclusions, so it falls just short of fully explicit usage guidance.

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