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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with those by describing a pure retrieval operation. It adds useful behavioral detail about the contents returned (template, argument template, output-interpretation guide, related resources). No contradiction with annotations is present.

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, front-loaded with the role ('Discovery helper'), and every sentence earns its place. The example is illustrative without being verbose, and no filler or redundant repetition of the schema exists.

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?

Given a single optional parameter, full schema description coverage, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description provides all necessary context. It explains what the tool returns, how to scope it, and why an agent would use it, without requiring additional elaboration.

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 already fully describes the tool parameter, including the 'Omit for all' behavior and the full list of valid tool names. The description adds a concrete JSON example and reinforces the one-or-all behavior, but does not significantly extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('returns') and a precise resource: the prompt template, argument template, output-interpretation guide, and related resources for SmartMoney77 tools. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the discovery/meta tool rather than a domain calculator.

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 makes the usage context clear: use it to learn how to call SmartMoney77 tools correctly without guessing. It also shows a concrete example involving a sibling tool. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer its role relative to the actual tools.

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