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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a hint at the returned content (day counts, lane state), and since an output schema exists, that adds little. It discloses no operational traits like caching, refresh cadence, or staleness thresholds, which would be genuinely useful for a freshness tool.

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?

Two compact clauses with the subject front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the undefined domain terms noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a status/freshness tool the description omits what the lanes mean, what units or time windows 'checkedLast24h' represents, and when freshness should be checked — gaps an agent cannot fill from structured fields alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description asserts 'Takes no input' while the schema defines an optional 'fields' projection parameter. That statement adds no meaning and mildly steers the agent away from a documented capability, so it falls below the high-coverage baseline.

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 says the tool reports 'how current the scanner's passes are' and returns 'the day's counts and each lane's state', so the broad intent (a freshness/status read) is inferable. However, 'passes' and 'lanes' are undefined jargon, and nothing distinguishes it from sibling meta tools such as ud_get_meta_enums, ud_get_meta_providers, or ud_list_meta_datasets.

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?

There is no statement of when an agent should call this (e.g. before trusting stats from other tools) and no mention of alternatives or mutually exclusive choices. The only usage-adjacent sentence, 'Takes no input', describes the call signature rather than the situation.

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