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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the shape of returned items (results live under an `enrichment` key) and the fact that the listing includes a collection-to-enricher default mapping, which matters because no output schema exists.

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 relevant content is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, with the collection-default mapping stated up front. The trailing 'Served by NicheDB (https://nichedb.dev/docs/mcp).' is boilerplate provenance that adds little for an agent already inside the NicheDB server.

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, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is listed and where enrichment results appear. Remaining gaps are minor: no indication of result ordering, size, or whether the mapping is exhaustive per collection.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. It correctly implies the result is unfiltered and complete rather than scoped by any argument.

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 names a concrete resource ('Every enricher') and enumerates its concrete members (YouTube videos, Wikipedia, repo stats, downloads, company profiles, TL;DRs), plus the secondary payload 'which collections turn it on by default'. That is enough for an agent to know exactly what comes back, though it never contrasts itself with the similarly named nichedb_list_collections or nichedb_list_adapters siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery call for available enrichers and their collection defaults. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as nichedb_list_collections for the collection side of the mapping.

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