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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the difference between catalog-only and availability results, and that blocked intents come with a 'compatibility rule' explanation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded first, followed by conditional usage details. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers the core functionality and parameter variations. It explains the two modes (catalog vs. availability) and the role of position_id. It doesn't elaborate on what 'intents' are or chain_id behavior, but those are covered by output schema and input schema descriptions, making this fairly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% since all three parameters have descriptions. The description enhances this by explaining the effect of omitting parameters (e.g., 'Without account_address this returns the catalog only') and the dependency of position_id on account_address. This adds relational meaning not fully captured in the schema.

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's purpose: 'List the automation intents Arcadia supports, with the parameters each one accepts.' This uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('automation intents') and distinguishes it from siblings like read_asset_manager_current by focusing on the catalog of supported intents rather than current settings.

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 description provides clear conditional usage: 'Pass account_address to also get per-account availability... Pass position_id as well to scope availability to one LP position. Without account_address this returns the catalog only.' This explains when to use different parameter combinations, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools as exclusions.

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