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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying exactly what the caller receives, including canonical documentation links, and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the operation and enumerates the exact return content without filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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 parameterless, read-only metadata lookup, the description plus annotations cover everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool. The absence of an output schema is mitigated because the description enumerates the high-level return items.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. A no-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Return', and names three concrete outputs: product safety boundary, exact-versus-estimate policy, and canonical documentation links. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pricing and get_supported_chains.

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 context is implied: use this tool when you need recovery methodology or policy details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings, nor does it name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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