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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond that: no authentication is needed, the tool is a discovery/reference endpoint, and legacy rates are explicitly labeled rather than being presented as current. This gives the agent realistic expectations before invocation.

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 is compact and front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists the key catalog items in one efficient sentence, followed by a short sentence on use cases and auth. Every clause adds either scope, a use case, or an operational detail; there is 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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates the categories of data returned, gives practical reasons to call the tool, and states the lack of an API key requirement. An agent has enough information to decide when to invoke this tool and what to expect back.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description instead focuses on the richness of the returned information, which is the meaningful content for this tool. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 begins with a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource scope: models, lifecycle, subscription plans, legacy reference rates, API tasks, emotion/speaking-style labels, and audio limits. This enumerates what the tool returns and clearly distinguishes it from the other oruk tools, which perform analysis, transcription, or key management.

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 explicit use cases: choosing a model, estimating cost before long audio analysis, and checking available labels. It also says no API key is required, which is directly relevant to when an agent can call this tool. It does not name sibling tools to exclude, but the use cases are specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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