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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries less burden. It adds context by describing the tool as a map of resource types, counts, hub URLs, and tool mappings, which goes beyond a simple list and supports the openWorldHint=false annotation. No contradictions exist.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core content (map, counts, URLs, tool mapping) and the second provides a direct action cue. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for an agent seeking quick orientation.

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 an output schema present and a zero-parameter signature, the description fully specifies what the tool returns and when to invoke it. It also references the broader tool ecosystem ('which tool reads it') without needing to detail return formatting, which the output schema covers. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying what the empty call returns (a map of all resource types) and its purpose (orientation), which enriches the null-parameter call beyond generic 'list' semantics.

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 precise outcome: a map of every public resource type, with counts, hub URLs, and the tool that reads each. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_* tools by emphasizing cross-type orientation rather than listing a single type, and from search tools by explicitly positioning it as an orient-before-search step.

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 explicitly says to call this to orient before searching, giving a clear when-to-use cue. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the instruction to use it before searching implies the differentiation from search_* and other list_* tools, making the context clear without exclusions.

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