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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them by disclosing the returned fields and the tool's role as an entry point, and there is no output schema to carry that burden instead.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the return fields are front-loaded and the usage instruction follows immediately. Nothing repeats the name or annotations.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain: no pagination/result-size guidance and no explanation of the 'DSGHT' term or what status/depth values mean.

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, so the baseline is 4; the schema has no parameters to document and the description correctly spends no space on them.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('DSGHT future-spaces published for public use'), and enumerates the returned fields (slug, topic, status, depth). It distinguishes itself from most siblings by emphasizing the public-discovery scope, though it never explicitly contrasts with the adjacent search_spaces tool.

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?

'Call this first to discover what foresight is available before fetching scenarios, tensions, or a report' gives clear sequencing and names the downstream tools (get_public_scenarios, get_public_tensions, get_public_report) it feeds. No explicit when-not-to-use or search_spaces alternative is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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