Summarize annotation progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific context about the categories of counts returned, which is helpful. No contradictions, and no mentions of rate limits or autflow, which is acceptable for a simple read-only tool.

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 sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no unnecessary words. It is maximally concise while conveying the core purpose.

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 no-parameter tool with a straightforward output, the description is complete enough. It lists the specific counts returned (imported, proposed, etc.). While it does not detail the output format, this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the presence of read-only annotations.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it implies the tool operates on all data without filters, which is clear.

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 explicitly states it returns counts for specific transcript statuses (imported, proposed, etc.). The verb 'Returns' and the resource are clear, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that perform editing, promotion, or evaluation.

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 usage for checking annotation progress but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the context of sibling tools suggests this is for summary queries.

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