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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what dimensions are returned (legal, technical, economic) and clarifies that it does not involve sharing accounts or raw credentials, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe the return format or any other behavioral details.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and adds a clarifying constraint about not sharing accounts or credentials. No wasted words.

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, read-only inspection tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose and the scope of the returned dimensions. The only minor gap is not describing the exact structure of the returned schema, but with no output schema defined and no parameters, the description carries the burden well.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns, which is the only semantic information an agent needs to invoke it correctly. With 0 params, baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('legal, technical and economic dimensions for offering unused AI capacity'), which clearly distinguishes it from many sibling tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is specific enough to differentiate from tools like get_market_schema or get_exchange_protocol.

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 this is the tool to inspect the Faceabot Capacity Exchange schema, and the title reinforces that. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_exchange_protocol or get_market_schema, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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