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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is free, requires no API key, and involves no round trip, and the verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly mention rate limits or failure modes, but for a simple retrieval this is acceptable.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, stating the core action in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences provide usage guidance and alternatives without redundant fluff, making every sentence valuable.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it returns, why it exists, when to use it, and how it differs from the pro-check alternatives. It is complete and self-contained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'regime' is fully described with an enum list. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool returns the FREE lite ruleset for one regime as markdown, specifying the resource and format. It also distinguishes itself from the run_*_pro_check tools by noting it needs no API key and no round trip, making it unique among siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to check crypto/fintech marketing copy...' and contrasts with the alternative: 'For the full 25-40 rule audit... use the corresponding run_*_pro_check tool (subscriber key required).' This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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