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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description goes further by stating it is READ-ONLY, does not place orders or charge per-endpoint fees by itself, is free to list, and notes that individual endpoint calls are billed separately. It also mentions rate limits and the JSON envelope structure, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, Behavior, Auth, Cost, Rate limit, Returns, Guidelines). Every sentence adds functional value; no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately detailed for a discovery tool that agents are expected to call first.

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 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description still adds critical operational details: authentication optionality, cost model, rate limit, return envelope, usage order, and exclusion of admin-only tools. This makes the tool fully self-contained and easy to invoke correctly.

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 and the schema is fully self-explanatory, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what is returned (endpoint names, prices, parameters, tiers) but does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none.

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 lists Central Command x402 catalog endpoints (names, prices, parameters, tiers) and frames its purpose as discovering which cc.* tools exist before calling them. This distinguishes it from sibling execution tools like cc.trade_builder or cc.asset_scanner, which actually perform actions.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Call this first. Then invoke cc.<slug> with required params.' It also notes that admin-only tools are omitted, setting clear expectations about what will or won't be listed. This is actionable and contrasts with running a specific endpoint.

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