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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant but consistent. The description adds the behavioral detail that it accepts the same filters as search_projects, which is useful context, but does not disclose other behaviors like output format or potential rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact: two sentences that front-load the purpose and output, then give an example and note read-only. There is zero filler, and every phrase earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (project count, capacity waiting, etc.) and the filtering capability. It does not specify the exact JSON structure of the response, but that is minor given the explicit list of fields. Annotations handle the read-only safety profile, so the description is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 all 7 parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond noting that filters are shared with search_projects and providing the state example. It does not introduce new syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 purpose: returning headline aggregate numbers (project count, capacity waiting, etc.) for the WaitingForPower dataset. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (aggregate stats) and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_projects by emphasizing the aggregate nature, making it obvious when to pick this over individual-project tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: it is for aggregate summaries and optionally scoped by the same filters as search_projects, which implies a contrast with the more detailed sibling. The example 'how much capacity is waiting in Arizona?' gives a concrete use case, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need individual project details).

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