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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description need not repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context not in annotations: the call is free and the response contains specific commerce metadata (prices, routes, quotas, pay-to address, credit packs). It does not mention auth needs or freshness, but the added return-content disclosure is substantive.

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, front-loaded sentence beginning with "Free." and then enumerating the catalog contents. Every phrase adds to the return-value picture, with no boilerplate or repetition.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the call returns, which it does via a detailed list. It leaves minor gaps around auth requirements and result format, but for a no-argument catalog tool it is nearly complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the parameterless listing returns rather than inventing input details.

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 ("Lists") and enumerates the resource contents: research products, prices, routes, quotas, seller pay-to address/network, and credit packs. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like kairos_market_summary or kairos_token_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?

The only usage-adjacent information is "Free," which signals no cost but does not say when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to choose for adjacent tasks. There is no explicit alternative routing or prerequisite guidance.

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