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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds a meaningful behavioral trait: coverage is incomplete and grows gradually because the biannual backfill is still draining. It does not discuss auth or return format, but the partial-data caveat is genuine added value beyond 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?

Two sentences, with purpose front-loaded and the coverage caveat following. The backfill clause is slightly wordy but earns its place by explaining why coverage is partial.

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 read-only, parameterless, no-output-schema tool, the description enumerates exactly what it reports and warns about the gradual backfill, so an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 specific verb and resource — reporting loaded Unified Agenda editions — and enumerates the exact returned values (oldest/newest edition, edition count, RIN-edition row count). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling search/agenda tools like reg_agenda_search and reg_agency_agenda.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use: invoke it to gauge coverage before relying on the dataset for a historical range or a specific edition. It does not name specific alternative sibling tools or state exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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