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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world safety. The description adds real semantic context beyond them: citable_censorship excludes suspected/draft data while by_status is the complete breakdown, which tells the agent how to interpret and trust each aggregate.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's function and followed immediately by the field interpretation guidance. Nothing is wasted and the ordering is sensible.

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, yet it only names two fields of what is presumably a larger aggregate payload and says nothing about scope, time window, or other breakdowns. It is helpful but not complete for a zero-parameter data tool.

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 the baseline is 4. The description instead characterizes the returned metrics, which is a reasonable substitute for parameter discussion.

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 ("Aggregate incident statistics") and names two of the fields it returns, which distinguishes it from incident detail/listing siblings. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with closely related tools like get_censorship_summary or get_incident_detail, so the differentiation is implicit.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus its many siblings. It does give field-level selection guidance by recommending citable_censorship as the "honest citable headline" over the full by_status breakdown, which is useful implied usage direction, but tool-selection context is absent.

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