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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: it is free, uses a wallet signature, includes a monthly lookup allowance, and meters extra lookups. It also discloses licence constraints such as no resale and attribution requirements, though it does not detail rate-limit thresholds or authentication flow specifics.

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 front-loaded with 'Free' and then lists the key plans, features, return fields, and licence constraints in one dense sentence. It is appropriately sized for a simple informational endpoint, though the list-like packing slightly reduces readability.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies enough context to understand what the tool returns: plans, prices, endpoints, and licence terms. It does not explain authentication mechanics beyond the wallet signature mention, but that is a minor gap for an informational tool.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable and the schema carries no parameter-documentation burden. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies here.

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 states the specific resource and output: a licensed trust data feed whose response contains plans, prices, endpoints, and licence terms. It is clear enough to separate this from the trust-checking siblings, but it does not explicitly name or rule out overlapping siblings such as lumi_catalog or lumi_quote.

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 implies the tool is for users evaluating trust data feed plans and licensing, but it never states when to use it versus alternatives. There are no explicit exclusions or routing hints, so the agent must infer usage from the topic.

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