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

Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful scope by clarifying that counts are for published items and includes the last-changed timestamp, though it does not describe response structure in detail.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the operation and enumerates the returned statistics without filler. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning.

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 low complexity, empty parameter schema, and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently states what is returned: counts of published providers, places, and categories, plus when data last changed. Annotations cover the remaining safety context.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings to document. The baseline score of 4 applies because the input schema is trivially empty and fully specified.

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: get counts of published sandbox providers, places, and categories plus last-changed time. This is clearly distinct from sibling list/search tools, which return records rather than aggregate statistics.

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 purpose implies it should be used for aggregate counts and freshness, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of list_categories, list_places, list_sources, or get_listing. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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