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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: the service is free. Beyond that it discloses no pagination, freshness, or scope limits, so it clears the lowered annotation-assisted bar but does not exceed it.

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 the key qualifier ('Free') front-loaded and no padding. It is slightly dense with the parenthetical service list, but every clause carries 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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and with zero parameters and full annotation coverage the structural burden is low. What remains is adequately covered: the agent knows it is free, what topics it spans, and that pointers to full docs are included.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The enumerated coverage list ('bridge, stocks, signals, gas sponsor') substitutes reasonably for parameter semantics by telling the agent what content to expect in the response.

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 a concrete resource (an overview of Liquid Agent services) and enumerates what it covers: bridge, stocks, signals, gas sponsor, prices, and docs location. That is enough for an agent to know this is the discovery/help entry point rather than an action tool, though it stops short of explicitly positioning itself against the action siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this first to learn what is available and where the docs live. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of whether it should be preferred over querying individual service tools, and no exclusions.

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