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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating that routes are fixed, public, raw-JSON, and that no network access is performed. This gives the agent important behavioral expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase earns its place: 'supported topics' states scope, 'fixed public raw-JSON routes' states output shape, and 'without network access' sets behavioral expectations.

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 parameterless listing tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what to expect (topics and routes), the nature of the routes (fixed, public, raw-JSON), and an important behavioral constraint (no network access). Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The schema already covers this fully, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is warranted given the absence of parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('supported topics and their fixed public raw-JSON routes'). It clearly differentiates from siblings by noting these are static routes retrieved without network access, which distinguishes it from financial_evidence_fetch and financial_evidence_route.

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 clearly implies this tool should be used when an agent needs to discover available topics and their routes, likely before fetching evidence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'without network access' phrase provides useful context for choosing this tool over a fetch/route operation.

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