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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the tool lists tools with pricing and input requirements, which suggests a read-only discovery operation, but it does not explicitly mention absence of side effects, authentication requirements, or output structure. Since 'list' implies a read operation, this is minimally transparent but lacks extra context like pagination or response format.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and purpose are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage guidance is in the second. Every word earns its place, making it exceptionally concise.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does and when to use it. The output is described conceptually ('list with pricing and input requirements'), but the absence of a detailed output schema means the description could have added more specifics about the returned fields or structure, though it remains sufficient for basic discovery purposes.

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 per the baseline rule, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to. The mention of 'input requirements' refers to the contents of the output (other tools' requirements), not this tool's own parameters.

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 the tool's function: 'List all available Harvey Intel tools with pricing and input requirements.' The verb 'List' and the resource 'available Harvey Intel tools' are specific, and the additional detail about pricing/input requirements distinguishes this discovery tool from sibling tools that provide actual intelligence data.

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 phrase 'Use this for discovery' provides an explicit use case, implying this tool is for discovering what tools exist rather than invoking them. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but given the sibling tools are all data retrieval functions, the context effectively differentiates this tool from alternatives.

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