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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no repetition. The description adds genuine context beyond them by enumerating the returned fields (version, build date, scope, default rows, latest price period), which compensates for the missing output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists return fields in a compact sequence with no filler, caveats or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description shoulders the job of explaining what comes back, and it does so field by field. It falls just short of complete because it doesn't say how this status relates to cbam_changes or cbam_scope results, which an agent may need to sequence 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate -- baseline 4 applies. It correctly implies a parameterless call by describing only returned data.

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 names a specific verb (Retrieve) and enumerates the exact resources returned: active dataset version, build date, total scope and default rows, and latest price period. That makes the purpose clear, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as cbam_defaults or cbam_scope, which likely expose overlapping data.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'status' – an agent can infer this is a lightweight metadata check to run before the more specific cbam_* calls, but the description never says so or names an alternative. No when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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