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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that counts are based on GDC's published reports rather than GDC's running tally, and why that choice was made. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first clause states what the tool returns, and the rest adds high-value grouping, filtering, and data-source caveats. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 read-only summary tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main elements an agent needs: source data, grouping options, filters, and a data-quality caveat. It stops short of specifying the exact output shape or allowed category values, but the annotations cover safety and the overall complexity is modest.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It compensates well by enumerating valid `by` values and clarifying that facility/year are optional filters, while noting they do not apply to `stats`. However, it does not enumerate valid values for actor-category, role, or item-category, nor explain defaults like year=0, so it is not fully complete.

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 identifies the tool as producing summaries of GDC contraband arrest reports, with an explicit list of grouping keys (`by` = year | facility | actor-category | role | item-category | stats). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings such as get_contraband_incidents, which presumably returns individual incidents rather than aggregated 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 description implies when to use the tool — when a summary/count of contraband arrests is needed — but it never names alternatives or explicitly says 'use get_contraband_incidents for raw incidents.' It does provide a usage constraint ('Optional facility slug / year filters (not for stats)'), but that is more parameter guidance than tool-selection guidance.

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