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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond that: all released server-1 hits are included, legacy timestamps are retained, and the crucial caveat that 'counts are observations, not unique players, visits or ownership' — preventing a common misreading of the data.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then differentiation, then the data caveat. Nothing is padded and each sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on purpose, contrast, and caveats. A zero-param discovery tool is adequately covered, though naming the follow-up hit-retrieval sibling would make routing fully complete.

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. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Discover complete raw-source NoCom daily hit coverage') and enumerates the contents an agent gets back (checksums, query routes, map tiles, CSV manifest). It distinguishes daily from 'World Pulse monthly summaries', though it does not directly differentiate itself from the sibling get_nocom_dataset.

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?

Gives an explicit usage directive: 'Discover coverage before choosing dates,' which tells the agent this is a reconnaissance step preceding date selection. It contrasts with monthly summaries but never names the natural follow-up sibling (e.g. get_nocom_daily_hits) as the alternative for retrieving hits.

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