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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the result set is fixed at 14, it is ordered, and it deliberately omits ranked names, which prevents the agent from misusing it as a ranking source.

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?

Three tight sentences that are front-loaded with the core fact (14 pillars, in order) followed by the usage pointer and the negative disclosure. No filler or restatement of the title.

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, no-output-schema lister, the description supplies the count, ordering, value range, intended downstream use, and a limitation. It does not sketch the per-pillar shape beyond the slug, but that is a minor gap for such a simple read 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is trivially complete and the description's mention of using the slug with attic_get_market_report correctly points at the output artifact rather than inventing parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (the 14 locked report pillars), plus the exact count, ordering, and the range of values (Collectors through Insights In Depth). It further distinguishes itself by noting it does not return ranked names, which separates it from ranking-oriented 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?

Explicitly says to use the returned slug with attic_get_market_report, which gives the agent a clear downstream workflow. It stops short of stating when not to call it or naming a competing list tool, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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