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

The annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the description does not need to explain side effects. It usefully discloses the subject matter of the returned information, but it does not describe the response format or other behavioral details beyond the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs in audience, pricing, and the principal rule without filler. It is dense with multiple clauses but every clause contributes relevant information.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description provides the key content an agent would need to answer what the directory is. Safety behavior is already covered by annotations, and the remaining scope is sufficiently 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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are inherently simple. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for a parameterless tool is appropriate here.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the welance/directory concept and specifies the information covered: audience, pricing, and the human-principal rule. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from informational siblings such as brief_rules, but the topical scope is still easy to identify.

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 no explicit guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling tool is the better alternative for related information. Usage is only vaguely implied by the tool name and title.

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