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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose what each returned entry contains (problem addressed, build scope, related guides) plus an explicit absence (no pricing). It does not say how many systems are returned, in what order, or whether the list is static, so the behavioral picture is only partial for a no-annotation 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the pricing exclusion is stated plainly. The first sentence is a verbless fragment that reads awkwardly ('The GTM systems ... each with the problem it fixes ...'), which slightly hurts front-loading but does not waste words.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description should characterize the return shape since nothing else does. It names the fields per entry and rules out pricing, but leaves cardinality, format, and pagination unstated and does not position the tool against get_resources or describe_firm.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning to add or omit. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies a no-argument listing call.

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 identifies the resource (the GTM systems Artemis GTM builds inside a client's CRM) and the payload each entry carries (the problem it fixes, what gets built, related free guides), so an agent can infer this returns a descriptive catalog. However, it never states a verb such as 'lists' and gives no hint of how this differs from siblings like get_resources or describe_firm.

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?

There is no positive when-to-use guidance and no named alternative tool. The one routing signal is a scope exclusion: 'No prices here: prices ... are published at https://artemisgtm.ai/pricing/', which tells the agent not to use this for pricing questions, but selection against the four sibling tools is left to inference.

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