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

The description's 'Read' aligns with annotations readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, with no contradiction. It adds the concrete data dimensions (phases, decision states, allocation limits, v5 readiness) beyond the annotations, but does not mention edge behaviors like stale data or error conditions — a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — every word contributes either the action, the scope, or the contents being read. Well below any size concern and perfectly scannable.

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 parameterless, read-only status tool with an output schema, annotations, and a clear workflow placement, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. There are no operative gaps.

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 coverage, so the schema leaves no ambiguity. The description adds no parameter syntax needs since none exist, but it does clarify what data the agent obtains; this is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('Census') and enumerates exactly what is read: phases, decision states, allocation limits, and v5 contract readiness. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling get_*tools targeting other domains (agent entry, market, marketplace, arcade).

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 phrase 'before preparing a decision' places the tool in an explicit workflow context — it is the read step that precedes the many prepare_* sibling tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.

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