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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real content beyond that: the listing covers both read and write directionality and per-format capability gaps, telling the agent the response carries lossiness caveats rather than just names. It does not discuss freshness or whether the list is static.

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 short clause with zero padding, front-loaded on the formats themselves. It is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, which leaves the action slightly implicit, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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, read-only discovery tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, this is sufficient: scope (reads and writes) and the most decision-relevant nuance (formats' limitations) are both stated. No further information is needed to call it correctly.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty schema matches the description's no-argument framing.

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 identifies the resource precisely: the set of formats Scoreproof reads and writes, plus per-format limitations. Combined with the title 'List supported formats', an agent can tell this is a catalog/discovery tool distinct from the action-oriented siblings (convert, validate, render). It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the verb itself in the description body.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction. Usage is only implied: mentioning 'what each one cannot hold' hints that this should be consulted before choosing a target format for convert or validate, but the agent must infer that ordering itself.

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