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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses caching behavior ('Hard-cached in-process (~5 min)'), error handling ('failures return an empty available=false payload rather than raising'), and what data is never returned ('Never returns issue titles, symbol paths, or npubs'). This is thorough and actionable.

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 concise and well-structured, using three short paragraphs: purpose, content/constraints, and caching/error behavior. Every sentence provides unique value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and prioritizes the most important operational details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers what the tool returns, what it omits, caching behavior, and failure semantics. There are no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by detailing the output structure: counts for five entity types, resolved_via mix, and a timestamp. This compensates for the lack of parameters and fully informs the agent of what to expect.

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 'Aggregate-only factory stats for the unauthenticated landing pages,' with a specific scope and content (counts, resolved_via mix, timestamp). It also explicitly distinguishes it from more detailed tools by noting it 'Never returns issue titles, symbol paths, or npubs,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like cypher_factory_resolution_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?

It specifies when to use: 'for the unauthenticated landing pages' and highlights that it is 'Free — no credits, no npub proof,' implying it is suitable for public/anonymous contexts. It also says 'Safe for cold Bolt,' providing operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use instead of X,' so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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