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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds helpful context about the returned content (features, offerings, how-to-use), but no additional behavioral detail like response size or scoping is provided.

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 delivers the purpose in one efficient first sentence and usage guidance in a second. It front-loads the core action, is appropriately sized, and contains no filler or repetition.

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 simple optional-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what is returned and when to use it. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return scope without over-specifying.

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 schema covers the only parameter, userId, with a description ('Optional user identifier.'), so the schema itself carries the parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the optional userId affects the result.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it returns Fodda's main capabilities, offerings, and usage instructions. It explicitly orients the agent to use it for any question about what Fodda can do, differentiating it from the more specific sibling data-retrieval tools.

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 provides clear guidance on when to call it: 'Call this for any question about what Fodda can do or what's available.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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