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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (JSON with per-host rows) and that the dataset is a dated snapshot (727 hosts on 2026-10-28), which implies a read-only, non-live operation. It omits freshness/staleness semantics, payload size, and whether the census is re-probed on each call or served from a fixed snapshot.

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 resource is front-loaded, but the single run-on sentence carries marketing puffery ('the only graded census', 'drops straight into a pitch list or a board report') that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke. The substantive content could be stated in half the length.

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 zero-param report with no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work: it explains what rows come back, what the grades and defect ids are, and that the output is JSON. Only the snapshot-vs-live question and payload scale are left open.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The enumeration of what the report contains is helpful context but is not parameter semantics.

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 concrete resource — a graded census of the CDP Bazaar discovery index — and enumerates its contents (per-host probe results, live-402 counts, A-F grades with defect ids, defect distribution). The 'report/census' verb-resource framing is clear, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the many sibling akari_* report tools.

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?

Usage is implied through audience ('directory operators, facilitators, and anyone deciding which sellers to court') rather than stated as when-to-call conditions. No alternatives among the siblings are named and no exclusions are given, so the agent must infer fit from the audience framing.

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