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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('List') and the cost behavior ('Free — no payment required'), but does not clarify whether any auth is needed, what the response structure looks like, or whether there are rate limits. For a simple catalog listing, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the cost note. Every word earns its place with 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and cost. It may not detail the return format, but for a catalog list the output is straightforward. It would benefit from clarifying whether it returns names, descriptions, or both, but it remains sufficient for such a simple tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what is listed (capabilities, intent-resolver catalog) even though there are no parameters to document. This fully covers the schema's empty property set.

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 the action ('List'), the resource ('i402 capabilities Palmyr can plan and execute'), and identifies it as the 'intent-resolver catalog', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actual actions. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 implies usage: if you need to know what capabilities Palmyr can plan/execute, list them. It also notes the tool is free, hinting that other tools may require payment, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternatives are named.

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