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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety and state behavior are fully covered by structured data. The description adds only a table of contents for the content returned (three stages, release terms, FAQs), with no note on authority, currency, or whether this is static marketing copy versus binding policy. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, closing with the invocation condition. No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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-argument, read-only informational tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to select and call it. The only residual gap is the absence of a boundary statement separating it from content-oriented siblings, which matters slightly because 'Capital Strategy' and 'technical page' overlap in vocabulary.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter discussion is needed.

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 scopes the resource: factual content on how Moyne Ross engagements work, enumerated as client/geography coverage (commercial and multi-unit property in Australia, the UK and the US), the three stages, Capital Strategy release terms, and common questions. That is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_sample_strategy or get_technical_page, which could plausibly be confused with 'terms on which a Capital Strategy is released'.

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?

'Use when the person asks about engaging Moyne Ross' gives an explicit trigger condition tied to the user's intent. There are no stated exclusions or pointers to alternative tools for adjacent questions (e.g., what a Capital Strategy contains vs. how to obtain one), so routing rests on the agent's own inference.

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