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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key trait: the counts are 'reported next to — never reconciled with' and the tool 'shows the disagreement rather than picking one.' It also notes the counts are always reported in full regardless of the limit. It does not discuss auth, errors, or read-only status, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 appropriately sized for a tool with nuanced behavior, and it front-loads the core comparison before moving to disagreement handling and filters. The first sentence is dense and somewhat convoluted with URLs and em-dashes, but every clause carries useful information. Slight restructuring would improve readability without cutting content.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description explains the two labelled numbers, their sources, the non-reconciliation behavior, and the optional row filters. It does not specify exact output field names or error behavior, but it gives enough context for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the high-level result.

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 covers all parameters (100%), with clear descriptions for axis and limit including case-insensitivity and default/maximum values. The description's mention of 'optional filters return recent rows: axis, limit' adds little beyond the schema. This matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 what the tool does: it reports the signed-card index's declared count alongside the card store endpoint's own count, and optionally lists recent rows. It is specific about the two data surfaces and the disagreement-showing behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or differentiate from them, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you want to see both counts side by side and detect disagreement without reconciliation. It also notes optional filters for recent rows. However, it never states when to prefer a sibling tool or provides explicit exclusions, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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