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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: some indicators are withheld (single-venue anchored) and appear as listed-but-not-served with the serving server named. It also implies a passive read that returns a catalogue, not a ranking. It does not mention pagination, catalogue size, or response shape beyond the field list, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and returned fields, then families, then usage. Sentences earn their place, including the withheld-indicator note. The trailing 'Standard questions this tool answers (get_guide with question): SQ-I1' is terse and slightly cryptic, but it is short and aids routing.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and both parameters are covered by the schema. It also explains what happens to non-served indicators. Minor gaps remain: no indication of catalogue size or format granularity of 'units'/'description' fields.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'family' (enum) and 'live_only' are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the three family values but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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+resource ('Returns the catalogue of Aletheia indicators') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (id, name, family, units, description, live status), so the agent knows what it gets back. It names get_indicator as the follow-up, which disambiguates against the lookup tool. However, it never mentions the sibling list_onchain_indicators, which sounds strongly overlapping, leaving a real sibling-confusion gap.

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 tells the agent when to use it ('Use this to discover what is available, then call get_indicator with an id') and states the exclusion ('it does not rank indicators or advise which to use'). That is clear context plus a named next step. It falls short of 5 because it does not address when to prefer this catalogue over the apparently-overlapping list_onchain_indicators sibling.

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