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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Describe' and 'Use this first' signal a read-only, informational call, and the listed content (coverage, freshness, tools, planned pricing) clarifies what behavior/returns to expect. It stops short of explicitly stating no side effects or data changes, but this is low-risk for a zero-argument overview tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first states the action and scope; the second gives the recommended invocation order and expected benefit.

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 capability-overview tool, the description is essentially complete: it names the subject, the content areas, and the recommended usage position. It does not describe the output structure, but no output schema exists and the listed content areas approximate what the response will cover.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain. The description still adds value by enumerating the content dimensions the tool covers ('Opportunity Atlas coverage, freshness, available tools, and planned premium pricing'), which orients the agent to what the result will contain.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Describe Opportunity Atlas coverage, freshness, available tools, and planned premium pricing.' It clearly names the tool's role as a Scout capabilities/overview entry point and distinguishes it implicitly from the sibling scout_preview by saying to use it first.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use this first to understand what Scout can answer.' This gives clear context for a first-step capability tool, though it does not spell out when not to use it or name scout_preview as the follow-up alternative.

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