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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It contributes the cost trait ('Free') and enumerates what is returned, which matters because there is no output schema and several siblings are paid operations.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and ending with the cost signal. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does enumerate the returned content (rails, assets, addresses, formula, rules). It is nearly complete, only lacking explicit guidance on sequencing relative to the paid siblings.

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 the baseline is 4. There is no argument semantics for the description to clarify, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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 names a specific verb (List) and enumerates the exact resource contents it returns: rails, assets, payout addresses, price formula, and rules. An agent can tell this is the spec/introspection tool without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like read_passage or quote_passage.

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?

Usage is only implied. The trailing 'Free' hints that this is the zero-cost discovery step to call before paid siblings such as quote_passage or submit_paid_line, but the description never states when to use it or when another tool is preferable.

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