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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source ('from the daily watcher') and scope, which is useful, but doesn't describe staleness, refresh timing, or whether the value is a snapshot vs. computed on demand.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the metric and scope. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the metric, scope, and data source. It could add a note about the output format or freshness, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool reports rather than inputs.

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 resource ('x401 emitter adoption') and a clear scope ('across the scanned catalogue'), sourced from the daily watcher. It distinguishes itself from generic stats tools by naming the exact metric, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like catalogue_stats.

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 description implies this is a status/read-only tool for checking adoption metrics, and the zero-parameter schema makes usage trivial. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over catalogue_stats or drift_status, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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