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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the useful scope detail that counts are limited to published items, but says nothing about refresh cadence, caching, or result shape beyond what it already lists.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the returned values with no redundant phrasing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by naming all three counts and the last-changed timestamp. Combined with annotations covering safety and a zero-parameter schema, this is nearly complete, though it omits any format detail for the timestamp or count values.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing further for the description to disambiguate on the input side, so no gap exists here.

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 states a specific verb (get) and enumerates exactly what is returned: counts of published programs, places, and categories, plus a last-changed timestamp. This clearly distinguishes it from the listing siblings (get_listing, list_categories, list_places), which return records rather than aggregate counts. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. Usage is only implied by the aggregate nature of the return values, so an agent can infer this is for summary counts rather than record retrieval, but routing guidance against search_listings or list_sources is left to inference.

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