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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description doesn't repeat those. It adds the context that no network requests are made and that the artifact updates once daily. Brief mention of return content is included, but still light on edge cases like freshness or failure behavior, so it earns a 3 rather than higher.

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 sentences, dense with accurate info. It front-loads the core value and then clarifies constraints. Slightly more context than strictly needed, but still efficient.

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 tool with three optional filtering params and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what, when, and what it never does. Enough for an agent to invoke it effectively without over-explaining.

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% and all three parameters have clear enums/descriptions and defaults. The description adds the crucial 'no live scanning' nuance, which complements, rather than repeats, the schema.

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 has a clear verb ('Returns...'), specifies the resource ('read-only view of the most recent local daily scan artifact'), and zooms in on the six regions covered. It also sets expectations by noting it's a local artifact, not live scanning.

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?

It gives the key context: the artifact is written once a day by a separate job, so users know this is a bounded, cached view. It doesn't outline explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the daily-update note helps prevent misuse.

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