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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'Static text, no market data, free tier' and explains that it teaches interpretation of honesty fields. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it doesn't detail the exact return format.

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?

Three focused sentences, front-loaded with 'READ FIRST' and 'routing guide', covering purpose, content, usage, and limitations with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, static-text tool, the description covers its role, contents (intents and honesty fields), when to use it, and its static/free nature. No output schema exists, and none is needed for this simple read-only guide.

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 input schema is empty with 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description appropriately focuses on purpose rather than parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4, so no additional parameter information 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 the tool is a 'routing guide for every n0brains tool', specifying the intent categories it covers and the honesty fields it explains. It distinguishes itself from the 40+ sibling data tools by being a meta-resource, with a clear verb+resource+scope.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this once if you are unsure which tool to use' and frames it as replacing trial-and-error over the catalog. This gives a direct when-to-use instruction and rationale, with no ambiguity.

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