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

The description discloses the output (credits and digest) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden, and it is minimally adequate.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no redundancy or extraneous information. Every word is meaningful and front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema (presumably defining return fields), the description covers the essential purpose. It could mention that it is safe to call repeatedly, but it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. There is nothing for the description to add regarding parameters, earning a baseline score of 4.

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 clearly states it lists 'supported credits' and 'current bundled rule-pack digest,' which defines its output. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_rule_pack,' but the verb 'list' implies a collection retrieval rather than a single item.

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 like 'get_rule_pack'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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