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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Return' implies a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is safe or side-effect free, nor does it mention any potential failure modes or prerequisites. It adds some transparency by listing the returned data, but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 concise sentence of 10 words, front-loading the action ('Return') and listing exactly what is returned. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and the output schema exists to describe return values, the description is mostly complete for a simple describe operation. However, it lacks any orientation about when to use this tool relative to siblings, and the term 'fleet-standard' is left undefined, though the output schema may clarify.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none, and it correctly omits parameter details.

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 the specific verb 'Return' followed by a clear list of resources (capabilities, version, pack digest, pricing), making it obvious what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_factor_pack and list_factor_packs, which focus on factor packs rather than the agent itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it returns without mentioning any exclusions, contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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