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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only status check but does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The information given is accurate but minimal.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding the 'free' note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the basic functionality but lacks details about the return format or what 'contagens' refers to specifically. It is adequate for a status check but not fully complete for an agent to predict the output structure.

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 schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 is applied for 0-parameter tools. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, which is acceptable.

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 the tool provides current database coverage counts and last ingestion timestamp. It identifies a specific resource (database health) and is distinct from sibling tools focused on financial data. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level criterion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The only additional note is that it is 'free', which is not a usage guideline.

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