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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description adds significant behavioral context: it discloses access requirements (public MCP with no auth vs. x402 micropayments with pricing tiers) and notes that certain features (org intelligence, agent governance, role briefs) require OAuth. This helps the agent understand authentication and potential cost implications.

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 well-structured with 'START HERE' as an immediate attention-grabbing prefix, followed by the tool's function, access methods, and call instruction. It is somewhat dense, especially the detailed pricing breakdown, but each sentence contributes useful context, making it appropriately sized for a catalog overview tool.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple catalog-return function, the description fully covers the tool's role, access options, and usage order. It includes enough context for the agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect, making it complete for its intended scope.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to add, and the description focuses on the tool's purpose and access details rather than parameter syntax.

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 'START HERE' and states 'Returns the complete Stratalize tool catalog', clearly identifying it as an overview/discovery tool. This distinguishes it from the domain-specific sibling tools (e.g., get_adoption_stage, get_ofac_sanctions_screening) by positioning it as the catalog entry point.

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 provides explicit usage guidance with 'Call this first to discover tools by role or vertical.' It clearly says when to use this tool (as the initial step), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling list implies each specific tool is an alternative for targeted data.

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