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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: the call is free and informational (non-mutating). However, it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, caching, or what the response looks like, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single compact fragment with no wasted words and the key content front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it partially does by listing prices, grading ranks, and tier-boundary wording. It still leaves the 'cbdr' concept undefined and omits the response shape, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is trivially complete.

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 the resource contents (prices, grading ranks, tier-boundary wording) but is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and the acronym 'cbdr' is never expanded. An agent can infer this is a read-only lookup of pricing/tier data, which does differentiate it loosely from verification siblings, but the purpose is not stated affirmatively.

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 parenthetical '(free, informational)' hints that this is the no-cost lookup option versus the verification siblings, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must guess whether to call this before or instead of channel_verdict or grounded_verification.

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