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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: no key is needed to list, tool calls are paid from the same balance/key as chat, prices appear in USDF with an API key, every listed tool is callable now, and pages hold up to 200.

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 front-loaded with purpose and packs auth, payment, filtering, and pagination details efficiently. It is dense but every clause adds useful information, though the single paragraph is slightly overloaded.

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 low-complexity list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is returned at a high level, pagination, authentication, and pricing context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces q as filtering on id, title, or description and cursor as page.next, and adds the page-size limit of 200, which is useful but not extensive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: tools callable via POST /v1/tools/{id}, with payment context and ordering. This clearly distinguishes it from chat, list_models, and other siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Explains that it lists currently callable tools and describes q filtering and pagination, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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