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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It only says 'Return', which suggests a read operation, but does not state whether data is live, cached, scoped, paginated, or if any permissions or side effects are involved. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 sentence with no redundant words and lists the key output categories in a clear, front-loaded manner. Every phrase 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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally sufficient for invocation because there is nothing to configure. However, the output categories are terse and somewhat jargon-heavy, and without an output schema or comparison to s80_backroom_discover, an agent gets an incomplete picture for selection and result expectations.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly focuses on output categories instead, matching the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource and output categories: 'SOURCE/80 gates, endpoints, governance and 80/20 economics.' It is clear about what the tool produces, but it does not contrast itself with the sibling s80_backroom_discover, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no indication of when to use this tool versus s80_backroom_discover or the other siblings. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references; only a statement of what is returned.

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