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

The annotations already carry the key safety traits: readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful detail about what the catalog contains, including source hashes and source-specific reuse restrictions, but does not go deeper into behaviors like pagination, response size, or whether the catalog is cached. This is adequate but not exceptionally transparent.

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?

Two sentences, both information-dense. The first fronts the main purpose and enumerates the catalog's contents, while the second provides a necessary boundary against adjacent resources. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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, read-only tool with a rich output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what the tool lists, what dimensions it exposes, and what remains out of scope. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result at a high level.

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, and the schema is empty, so the description cannot be expected to elaborate on parameter meanings. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description provides ample context about the nature of the returned catalog without needing to discuss 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 starts with the specific verb 'List' and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: drugs, arms, informal-economy datasets, indicator units, dimensions, coverage, source hashes, and reuse restrictions. It also explicitly distinguishes legacy atlas and price histories as separate resources, making its scope clear relative to sibling tools.

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 is the entry point for discovering market catalog contents, and it draws a boundary by stating legacy atlas and price histories are distinct resources. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use get_atlas for legacy atlas data' or naming alternatives, but the distinction is sufficient for an agent to avoid misusing this tool.

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