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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the statistics are 'live' and enumerates the returned counts, which is useful context but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like response format, latency, or potential variability. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates every statistic returned, and the second sentence provides concrete use cases. Every clause 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?

This is a zero-parameter read-only tool with clear annotations, and the description lists all the statistics returned, effectively covering the response semantics even without an output schema. The usage guidance completes the picture. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters requiring additional explanation. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than input semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Return live statistics') and names the exact resource (Workers' Rights corpus), then enumerates the precise data points returned. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like search_rulings or find_similar_cases, which are query-oriented rather than aggregate statistics.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to establish scale/credibility or answer questions about data volume and currency. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the use cases are clear enough that an agent would know when this tool is appropriate rather than a more specific legal tool.

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