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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses that the tool is free, returns reference norms, and supports optional topical scoping. It does not describe auth requirements, rate limits, or response shape, but its read-only informational nature is clear from 'Returns'.

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 front-loaded with 'Free' and the core return value, then gives usage instructions. It is list-heavy but appropriately dense for a broad standard, with no filler sentences.

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?

Given one optional enum parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the content covered and how topic scoping works. It could be stronger by sketching the response structure, but it is complete enough to call confidently.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the enum already documents the nine topic values. The description adds useful semantics by saying a topic returns one section, implying the default is the broader standard.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns current norms for building agents that can be discovered, trusted, and paid. It scopes the content to MCP shape, payments, discovery, demand.json, exchange, affiliates, security, and a stack_2026 snapshot, which clearly separates it from operational siblings like get_agent_record or trust_check.

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?

It explicitly says to call it before writing an MCP/payment layer and explains that passing a topic returns one section. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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