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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: a 6-hour refresh cadence, backfill coverage to 2018, no payment requirement, and a licensing/source attribution.

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?

Front-loaded and readable, but the opening sentence is a verbatim copy of the title, and 'Free, no payment needed' restates the 'free counts' phrase already used twice. The source/license sentence is the only part that could arguably be trimmed, but it is short.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary. The description covers freshness, historical coverage, cost, and provenance, which is enough for a zero-required-parameter summary tool; only pagination/response-size expectations are absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter already documents its match semantics (exact vs partial case-insensitive) and examples. The description only says 'Optional filters narrow the counts', which adds no syntax or value detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get free counts of NSW complying development certificates') and specifies the aggregation dimensions (status, application type, council). It is clearly separable from siblings like nsw_cdc_search_applications and nsw_da_get_summary by scoping to CDC 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?

'Call this first' is an explicit workflow directive, and it explains why: it reveals loaded counts and the exact council/status/application-type values the other tools accept. It stops short of naming which specific sibling to use next or when not to use this tool.

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