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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the feeds are free, machine-readable, and exposes an OpenAPI document URL. It does not describe pagination, rate limits, or output detail, but for a zero-parameter listing endpoint with an output schema this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences; the first front-loads the action and resource, and the second adds a useful OpenAPI reference without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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, read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It states what is listed, how availability is described, and links to the API documentation for further detail.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is fully covered and the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning because none exist; the only context provided is the resource being listed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('Compensation Professional's free machine-readable feeds') and what information is provided (MCP/REST availability). This clearly separates it from sibling retrieval/search tools because it enumerates available feeds rather than answering or searching.

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 implies the appropriate use case: when an agent needs to discover available machine-readable feeds and how they can be accessed via MCP/REST. It gives clear context but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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