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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds traits they cannot express: deterministic/reproducible output, failure behavior for invalid ids, and a framing caveat that this is reference data rather than a regulatory determination.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and who consumes it, followed by the how-to-use constraint. No filler; the em-dash clause and the determinism caveat each add distinct information.

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 full burden and discharges it: it says what comes back (ids plus labels), how to use it, what happens on invalid input, and how to interpret the result. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still usefully characterizes what the returned identifiers are (closed catalogs of valid feature/market ids with short labels) and where they are consumed, which is as much parameter-adjacent meaning as a no-arg tool can carry.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (return the closed catalogs of valid feature ids and market ids) and immediately anchors them as 'the exact identifiers compute_requirements accepts as features and markets'. An agent can distinguish this from lookup/search siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow instruction: validate ids here before calling compute_requirements, and explains the consequence of skipping it (ids outside the catalogs are rejected with an actionable error). The alternative tool and the condition that selects it are both named.

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