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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing credit cost (0) and that the response also reports negative coverage (what is not covered yet), which helps an agent interpret an incomplete listing.

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 front-loaded sentence leading with cost, then scope, with no filler. The inline enumeration of venue names is partly redundant with what the call itself returns, and the parenthetical 'MT5 pattern' is unexplained, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

For a zero-parameter, non-destructive listing tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, scope, and coverage gaps adequately. It stops short of saying how the listing relates to downstream tools like venue_facts, which would have made it fully self-sufficient.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a full unfiltered listing rather than a queried subset.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — lists the venues AIKIT has verified facts for — and then enumerates the three things returned: venues, covered symbols/topics, and known gaps. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like venue_facts (which retrieves the facts themselves) and symbol_spec.

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 'Free (0 credits)' note gives useful cost context that implies this is a cheap discovery/preflight call, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no named alternative such as 'call venue_facts for the actual data'. Usage must be inferred from purpose.

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