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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds that the result is a complete, code-name-keyed mapping of all signals, which is useful, but it says nothing about the size of the list, whether it is static or refreshable, or what happens for unknown code names.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return shape is stated first and every clause (name, display name, description, key) carries information.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place the return shape can live, and it does state the fields and keying. It stops short of describing whether this is a fixed reference set or how it relates to the signal-listing tools, which would fully close the gap.

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 is 4. The schema adds nothing to describe, and the description correctly implies no filtering or input is required.

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 names a specific resource and its payload: every signal's friendly name, display name, and short description, keyed by code name. An agent can tell this is a static label/metadata lookup rather than a signal search or evaluation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly named list_signals, get_signal, or search_signals.

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 sentence describes content but gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_signals or get_signal. The only hint of usage is the implicit 'keyed by code name' mapping, which an agent must infer.

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