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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explicitly states that the tool is free, requires no key, has no charge, has no side effects, reads static text, and calls no model. This gives the agent strong confidence about safety and cost before invoking it.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant content. Each sentence carries useful information: the purpose, the safety/cost profile, and the parameter behavior.

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, read-only documentation tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete context. The agent knows what the tool covers, how to select content, what happens by default, and that invocation has no side effects or cost.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with an enum and per-value description, and the description adds the key behavioral detail that section picks one page while omitting it returns all pages. The single parameter is fully explained.

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 that the tool explains how this server's protocol works, covering billing, audit tiers, the Nittim Loop, and disputes. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools by being a documentation/reference tool rather than an operational or audit action.

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 description explains what the tool does and explicitly notes that it is free, requires no key, has no charge, and has no side effects because it reads static text and calls no model. It also tells the user how to choose a section and what happens when section is omitted.

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