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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the returned fields, the grouping scheme, and that descriptions and five-element associations are currently sparse ('almost none').

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and output fields; the second adds a relevant data-completeness caveat without padding.

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-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, the exact scope, the returned fields, and the current data-quality limitation. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and set correct expectations about results.

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 the schema places no burden on the description. With 0 params, baseline is 4; the description also adds value by explaining what kind of data is returned even though there is nothing to parameterize.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('every channel group in the AcuiQ point catalogue'), and the output contents (acupoint count, page URL). It also names the scope: 14 classical meridians plus extra-point and auricular groups, distinguishing it from point- or symptom-level 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?

The context is clear: use this tool to get the full catalogue-level list of meridian groups rather than a single point or symptom detail. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the exhaustive 'every channel group' wording makes the intended use unambiguous relative to the sibling tools.

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