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

The description says 'read-only' and 'public agent-readable resources', but annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. It adds mild scope context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single sentence that is direct, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 parameter-less, read-only guide tool with relevant annotations and an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It lacks only a bit of explicit orientation on when to prefer this tool over its siblings.

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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The schema is empty and fully covered, so no compensation is 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: it returns a read-only guide to InfoAddict and its public agent-readable resources. The resource and scope are specific, making it distinct from sibling tools that retrieve services or contacts.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. Usage is only implied through the word 'guide', which signals this is likely for orientation rather than a specialized lookup.

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