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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful extra context: a freshness marker ('verified 2026-10-18') and an explicit negative scope ('what the product is NOT: no mail-flow enforcement, no Microsoft 365 sync, no analytics'), which helps prevent hallucinated capabilities.

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 dense sentence enumerates the covered topics with no filler, front-loading the core identity ('What ProSignature is') before the details. It is somewhat list-like but every clause earns its place.

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 no-param, no-output-schema static facts tool, the description adequately scopes what content is returned, including pricing freshness and known limitations. Only a note on the response shape (docs vs. narrative facts) is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies per the rubric.

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 enumerates the resource: static reference facts about ProSignature (plan pricing, install behavior, negative capabilities, doc locations). It is not a tautology, but it lacks a crisp verb and overlaps with siblings quote_price (prices) and get_install_steps (installs), so it does not fully disambiguate from them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given that pricing and install topics also appear in quote_price and get_install_steps, a routing hint (e.g., 'use for static fact lookups, not for live quotes') would be valuable but is absent.

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