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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully specifies the returned fields and that results are keyed by code name, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only static reference list, nor does it mention side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase—friendly name, display name, short description, keyed by code name—contributes directly to understanding the result.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return shape: keys and included fields. It could be slightly more complete by indicating when to choose this over related signal-listing tools, but it covers the essential contract.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There is no parameter behavior to document, and the description appropriately focuses on the returned mapping instead.

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 states a specific resource and scope: every signal's friendly name, display name, and short description, keyed by code name. It is clear what data the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_signals or get_signal.

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?

Usage is implied by the return contents—an agent can infer it should call this when it needs to map code names to human-readable labels. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as list_signals.

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