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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly labels the tool as informational by listing content categories, but it does not mention response format, whether the information is static, or explicitly confirm that no side effects occur.

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, efficient sentence immediately states the subject and the three key content areas: price, features, and how to start. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 informational tool, the description provides essential context: it identifies what the tool is about and what information it returns. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the response shape, but the tool's low complexity makes this acceptable.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no undocumented inputs. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter detail, and it does not attempt to.

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 clearly identifies the resource (Fala, Zuki! — a personal finance assistant on WhatsApp) and the exact content categories: price, features, and how to start. This is distinct from the many calculation and advice siblings, so an agent can easily recognize its purpose.

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 when to use the tool: when the user asks about Fala, Zuki! itself, such as pricing, features, or getting started. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any alternative tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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