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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses concrete operational behavior: cached for 60 seconds, free and keyless, failed reads return null rather than a guess, and output contains counts only with no case, place, wallet, or job IDs. These details are useful and consistent with the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations.

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 a dense run-on with nested parentheticals and repeated philosophical caveats such as 'never a verdict', 'no outcome is claimed', and 'never treatment'. The core read is buried rather than front-loaded, making the definition unnecessarily hard to scan.

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, return-value detail is already structured elsewhere, and the description still covers data scope, privacy constraints, cache behavior, and cost. It is complete enough to invoke, though it leaves routing questions to the separate usage-guidance dimension.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline score of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 identifies this as a live read of coordination-board metrics: 24-hour and all-time moves, board totals, cases by stage, four lights, door readiness, and four intakes. That is a specific resource and data scope, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling metrics tools such as board_stats.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The URL equivalence provides context but does not tell an agent which sibling to choose for overlapping coordination or board data.

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