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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure; the verb 'List' implies a non-mutating retrieval, and 'No arguments' signals invocation constraints. It does not disclose return shape, whether links/URLs are returned, or any auth/rate-limit considerations.

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 short sentences front-load the action and resource, then concretely enumerate the included items and the no-argument requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no-argument listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it names all resource categories and sets invocation expectations. It could be slightly stronger by stating what the response contains (e.g., a list of links), but the call itself is fully specified.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema already documents an empty object; the description reinforces this with 'No arguments.' There is no semantic gap for the agent to resolve.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List official aicoolies developer resources') and enumerates concrete item types (OpenAPI, MCP, llms.txt, datasets, developer portal). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling catalog tools such as get_tool or search_tools.

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 intended use is implied by the listing purpose and the explicit 'No arguments' statement, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over the sibling get_* or search_* tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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