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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context beyond that: it explains that the tool returns counts (not records) and a last-changed timestamp, which is important since there is no output schema. It does not clarify whether counts are global or broken down per category/place, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. The key information—what is counted and the freshness timestamp—is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what data comes back and that freshness information is included. A small gap remains in that it does not specify whether the counts are totals or a per-category/per-place breakdown, which could matter for an agent deciding whether this tool answers its question.

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 to document; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema coverage gap.

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 ('Get') and precisely states the resource: the number of published funeral providers, places and categories, plus when the data last changed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories or search_listings, which return items rather than aggregate counts.

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 usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs aggregate counts or data freshness rather than lists of entities. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus the list/search siblings, nor does it name any alternatives.

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