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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the per-call cost, confirms it is a read-only liveness probe, includes a disclaimer that it's educational data not financial advice, and explains payment methods. This is substantial transparency, though it doesn't cover potential error behaviors or rate limits.

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 somewhat lengthy but every part serves a purpose: pricing, functionality, use case, payment instructions, and a link to a free catalog. It is front-loaded with price and purpose, and while payment details could be condensed, the structure is logically organized and does not contain fluff.

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 no-parameter liveness probe, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, how to pay, caution about educational data, and a pointer to explore other tools. It lacks details on response format or potential failure modes, but given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, it is adequately complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, which is appropriate. It does not need to explain anything beyond what the schema shows.

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 is a liveness probe that returns per-agent intelligence output counts and last-seen timestamps over the last 24h across 40+ data agents. This is specific, uses a distinct verb (get) and resource (agent status), and distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools by framing it as a health check.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Verify the engine is live before buying data' – a clear use case. It also mentions a price comparison and points to get_catalog for browsing tools, but does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools to use instead of this one, so it's slightly below a 5.

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