Collection status (keyless)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new behavioral facts: no API key is required and no credits are consumed, which matters for budgeting and pre-auth probing. It stops short of disclosing anything about response shape, scoping, or latency, so it is useful but not rich.

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?

Two compact clauses with zero padding, and the substance (jobs, workers, freshness) is front-loaded. The cost/auth note follows logically as a secondary qualifier. Minor deduction for the unexplained 'Measured' and for the verbless construction, which slightly slows comprehension.

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?

With one optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns at a high level, that it is free, and that it needs no credentials. Only the exact response format is unstated, which is a small gap for a status endpoint of this simplicity.

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 is a single optional 'task' parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the schema itself explaining that a plain-sentence task helps the API return fitting results. The description adds no additional meaning about how that task string influences the status output. Baseline 3 applies where the schema already carries the semantics.

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 concrete resource and its contents: collection status covering jobs, workers, and per-dataset freshness. An agent can distinguish it from data-fetching siblings like get_coverage or get_history_coverage reasonably well. It is a noun phrase without an explicit verb, and the modifier 'Measured' is left unexplained, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 infers it should call this to check collection health. 'No key needed, no credits' signals a free, unauthenticated probe, which is a useful selection cue. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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