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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is static and 'costs nothing', implying no side effects or changes. For a simple listing tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second adds the static/cost-free nature. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 simple static listing tool with one fully-documented parameter, the description plus schema provides complete context. No output schema is expected, and the tool's simplicity means no further details are needed.

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 only parameter (context) is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, but the schema already handles it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'List the supported Kurdish dialects and their scripts' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle voices, transcription, and speech synthesis. The added 'Static capability descriptor' further clarifies its role.

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 phrase 'Static capability descriptor — costs nothing' provides clear context that this is a lightweight, read-only tool for discovering dialects/scripts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling tools are naturally distinct.

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