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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reports on data coverage and notes that the dataset grows incrementally rather than containing GAO's full archive. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the tool's data model and limitations.

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 with zero waste. The key facts (what it reports, when to use it) are front-loaded, and the growth-pattern detail is a single clause that adds necessary context without bloat.

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 coverage tool with annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what the tool does, when to use it, and a key limitation (incremental growth). Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke it is missing.

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 the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously), so the description need not explain parameters. However, it does explain what the tool returns (coverage stats), which is useful since there is no output schema. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 explicitly states what the tool does: reports total decisions, earliest/most recent decided_on dates, and last crawl time for GAO bid-protest data. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like gao_protests_recent/search by positioning it as a coverage check to run before relying on those, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Use this before relying on gao_protests_recent/search to know how far back coverage actually goes.' It also explains the data growth pattern (~5 per daily crawl), which helps the agent understand when to consult this tool for freshness or scope.

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