registry_info

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

With no annotations and zero parameters, the read-only nature is inferable but never stated. The mention of 'bundled or refreshed from GitHub Pages' usefully signals that the local copy may be stale, yet the description doesn't say whether calling triggers a network refresh, how long that might take, or what the return shape looks like.

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 sentence with no filler, and the primary content (row counts) is front-loaded. The semicolon-delimited list is dense and the ordering of secondary items is somewhat arbitrary, but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so field by field. The remaining gap is behavioral rather than definitional: the agent still doesn't know whether a refresh happens on call or what the response structure is.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly focuses its words on output contents instead of inventing input details.

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 enumerates concrete contents: row counts by status/tier/platform family, generation timestamp, provenance, unmapped platform strings, and harvest index size/date. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like find_sources or check_source, which look up individual sources. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'reports'), but the resource is unmistakable.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer this is for checking registry coverage, freshness, or provenance, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative. It also doesn't say whether it should be called before querying sources to validate the data is current.

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