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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant. The description still adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the scope of returned content (tiers, AUD and x402 USDC pricing, requirements, links), which is the behavioral detail an agent needs to decide the call will answer the question.

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, front-loaded with purpose and payload contents, then the routing instruction. Nothing redundant except 'Read-only', which is a minor two-word tail.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the information the response covers, so an agent knows in advance whether this call answers the user's question. Zero params plus full annotation coverage leaves nothing material unexplained.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. It correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 (describe) and a specific resource (the CommonRig agent operating kit) plus target clients, and enumerates exactly what the answer contains: contents, tiers, AUD/USDC prices, requirements, links. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings kit_quote, kit_buy_x402 and kit_sample, which transact rather than inform.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call first when a user asks what CommonRig is or what it costs.' It does not name kit_quote as an alternative for pricing questions, so there is mild overlap risk, but the 'call first' routing instruction is unusually actionable.

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