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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context about what data is returned (counts by issuer, sync date), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as potential external calls, rate limits, or data source behavior. Since annotations cover the main safety aspects, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise sentence in Latvian, followed by an English summary. It is front-loaded with the core purpose (how many current acts), then adds breakdown and sync date. There is no wasted wording, and the bilingual format is clean and efficient.

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?

For a simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it specifies the type of data (count, breakdown by issuer, last sync date) and gives examples of issuers. It does not describe the exact response structure, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is sufficient. It is slightly less complete than ideal because it doesn't mention whether the sync date is for the whole corpus or per issuer, but that is a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the input schema is empty. The description focuses on output semantics, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states what the tool does: reports the count of current legal acts in the Vairogs database, broken down by issuer, and the last sync date with likumi.lv. It uses specific verbs and resources ('Cik spēkā esošu tiesību aktu ir Vairoga datubāzē') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on retrieving individual laws, articles, or searches.

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?

Usage context is implied: an AI agent would understand to use this tool when needing corpus statistics or data freshness, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool comparisons are given, so guidance is limited to what is implied by the tool's purpose.

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