micar_register_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that — it does not say whether data is live or cached, how registers are grouped, or what 'coverage' is measured against.

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 core payload front-loaded. The phrasing is slightly telegraphic ('format coverage'), but it wastes no space.

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 no parameters, an output schema covering the return values, and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is routing: an agent gets no signal about when to pick this over micar_register_changes or search_micar_register.

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 input parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. Nothing further about parameters is needed or expected.

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 the specific resource (MiCAR register, white paper formats) and the exact output shape (current totals and format coverage), which clearly separates it from search_micar_register and micar_register_changes. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'lists'), but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named. An agent must infer from the word 'summary' that this is the aggregate-overview tool rather than the search or change-history tools.

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