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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those hints: 'Free, read-only, no arguments' and 'Not counted against the free ceiling,' which explains billing and operational constraints the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the purpose, exclusions, and usage context with no filler. The key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is trivial to invoke with no parameters and the output has an existing schema. The description fully covers what the tool returns, how it behaves, and how it differs from sibling tools, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema already documents this with an empty properties object. The description reinforces this with 'no arguments' and shows an example empty object, so no additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Returns who runs this, our operating theory, how we work, and how to check each claim.' It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly excluding price or status feeds, so an agent can differentiate it from get_payment_terms and /status.json.

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 when-to-use guidance by stating 'Not a price or status feed' and naming alternatives: 'get_payment_terms has the quote, /status.json the health.' It also notes the operation is free, read-only, and takes no arguments, giving clear context for safe invocation.

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