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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does a strong job: it names the returned fields, defines the three family categories, states that only live indicators can be filtered via 'live_only', and explains that some indicators are deliberately withheld and listed with a server. It stops short of disclosing operational details such as pagination or response shape, but those are minor for a catalogue 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and return content, then organises family definitions, usage guidance, and limitations into compact sentences. Every sentence contributes new information; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers return fields, family taxonomy, the live flag, the discovery workflow, and the withheld-indicator caveat. The only contextual gap is not explicitly positioning this tool against list_onchain_indicators, but the three-family scope makes the distinction inferable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by defining what each family means ('credit', 'onchain', 'market' with concrete examples like MVRV and SOPR) and by explaining the meaning of 'live' in context. It also explains the withheld-indicator behavior, which clarifies how results are organised.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('catalogue of Aletheia indicators') and enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows what this tool produces. It also distinguishes itself from get_indicator by saying to discover first here and then call get_indicator with an id, and by disclaiming ranking/advising behavior.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this to discover what is available, then call get_indicator with an id' and clarifies that it does not rank or advise, which is useful when/not-to guidance. It does not, however, contrast itself with the overlapping sibling list_onchain_indicators, so the when-to-use guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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