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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a harmless read-only enumeration and hints at return content ("with capabilities"), but does not say whether results are static, how capabilities are represented, or what the response looks like — modest gaps for a zero-parameter listing tool whose blast radius is small.

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 short sentence with the resource and its scope front-loaded, and no filler. It is as compact as a tool description can be while still stating purpose.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, but "capabilities" is left undefined and no output shape is implied. An agent knows what the call does but not quite what it will get back.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is empty and complete. Baseline 4 applies, with no parameter-related information missing.

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 and resource ("List all supported fitness data formats") and adds scope ("with capabilities"). It is clearly a catalog/enumeration tool, distinguishing it in spirit from kaiord_get_format_spec, but it never names that sibling or states the difference explicitly.

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: an agent can infer this is a discovery step before calling kaiord_convert or kaiord_get_format_spec. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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