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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Never cached' indicates real-time data, and 'keyless' clarifies access requirements. This enriches transparency without contradicting 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and metrics, then adds usage context (location) and operational details (never cached, public mirror, free, keyless). Every sentence contributes meaningful information 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return formats; it appropriately lists the main returned metrics (total/open work, claims, settlements, proposed value, sector breakdown). Optional location behavior is explained, and annotations cover the read-only, idempotent nature. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (latitude, radiusKm, longitude) having a clear description. The tool description adds a high-level concept of 'location' and 'nearby' but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Live counts from the Vealth work board' with specific metrics (total/open work, claims, settlements, proposed value, sector breakdown). It uses a specific verb ('read', 'count') and resource, and the unique functionality of optional location-based nearby counting distinguishes it from siblings like find_work.

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 some usage guidance: 'Pass a location to also count work nearby' and notes that it is free and read-only, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough to infer appropriate use, but lacks explicit routing or exclusions.

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