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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral caveat that the output is references only ('returns links, not summaries'), which prevents the agent from fabricating content. It does not discuss size limits or pagination, but for a fixed, small document set that is a minor omission.

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 short sentences: what it lists, when to use it, and what it returns. The resource definition and examples are front-loaded, and the final sentence is a high-value constraint rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values, which it does ('a link to the full text of each', 'returns links, not summaries'). For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool this is everything an agent needs to invoke it and interpret the result.

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 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description correctly spends no words on nonexistent inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists Poplin's published legal documents') and enumerates concrete examples (terms of service, privacy policy, risk disclosure). It is unmistakably distinct from every get_*/list_banks sibling, which all return account, rate, or country data rather than policy text.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use it when someone asks about Poplin's terms, policies or what it doesn't allow.' It also implicitly excludes a misuse case by noting it returns links, not summaries. No competing alternative tool is named, but none of the listed siblings could substitute.

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