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

The description explains what the tool returns in concrete terms, including 'output-interpretation guide' and 'related resources,' which goes beyond the annotations. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety behavior is covered. There is no contradiction between the description and 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?

The description is two crisp sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose with 'Discovery helper' and then detailing the returned artifacts. The example is compact and immediately useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one optional parameter, complete schema coverage, a rich output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It clarifies the 'one or all' behavior and provides a usage example, while the relevant tool list lives where it belongs in the schema.

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 documents the 'tool' parameter with a full list of allowed values and the note 'Omit for all,' so precise parameter semantics are present. The description adds a concrete JSON example and reinforces the 'one or all' behavior, giving the agent an extra anchor for correct usage.

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 opens with the specific verb 'returns' and names the exact resources delivered: standard prompt template, argument template, output-interpretation guide, and related resources. It clearly distinguishes this discovery helper from the calculator siblings by stating it describes 'SmartMoney77 tools' rather than computing results. An agent will not confuse it with the sibling calculator tools.

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 phrase 'so you can call them correctly without guessing' communicates the intended use case: consult this tool before invoking other SmartMoney77 tools. It also shows an example call for a specific tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative discovery approaches, though none appear to exist among the siblings.

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