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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does this well by explaining the default SSOT-only operation and the live probing behavior when include_live_tool_counts=true. It doesn't cover potential latency, permissions, or edge cases, but it gives meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare list operation.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second sentence explains the default behavior plus the conditional flag. There is no filler or redundant 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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the default and the flag, but it could be slightly clearer about what an 'intelligence authority' is and what shape the returned list takes. Still, an agent can call it correctly with this information.

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 schema already fully documents the single optional boolean parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining when to set it ('when the agent needs proof...') and what it does ('probe each canonical vertical MCP and include current tool counts'), going beyond the schema's terse description.

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 states a specific action ('List all BrunoSan intelligence authorities') with a clear subject. However, it doesn't explicitly define what 'intelligence authorities' are, nor does it distinguish itself from sibling tools like inspect_domain or discover_brunosan beyond the word 'List'.

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 gives excellent guidance on default behavior ('instant and SSOT-only') and the condition for using the optional flag ('when the agent needs proof that the underlying MCP servers are reachable now'). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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