get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: results are aggregate counts only and 'Names are masked', which is a data-privacy behavior an agent could not infer from structured fields. It stops short of describing shape or size of the payload, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 payload contents are front-loaded into the first sentence and the routing instruction closes the description, so the structure is sound. The middle enumeration is somewhat run-on ('how many documents taxtrace has read, how many files it saved per kind of reading'), which could be tightened into a short list without losing information.

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, itemizing every count returned plus the name-masking caveat. Combined with zero params and full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-workspace call rather than a filtered one, which matches the empty schema.

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?

Opens with a specific framing ('What the person's workspace holds, as counts') and enumerates exactly which counts are returned: tax-year folders, documents per folder, documents read, files saved per reading kind, and to-do list existence. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings that return documents (list_documents) or to-dos (get_todo).

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here', establishing it as the entry-point tool, and routes the agent to the correct alternative for each adjacent need – 'for the documents themselves use list_documents, for the to-dos use get_todo'. That is the when-to-use plus named-alternatives pattern in two clauses.

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