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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload (config contracts, limits, point-in-time support). It does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication, or whether the engine list is static or tenant-specific, which are minor gaps for a read-only enumeration tool.

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, both earning their place: the first defines the resource and its payload, the second gives the call-ordering rule. Purpose is front-loaded before guidance.

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 output schema, the description does the work of sketching the return contents (config contracts, limits, asOfDate), which is enough for a zero-parameter discovery call. It could say slightly more about the shape of each engine entry, but nothing an agent needs in order 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to add beyond the schema. The description correctly adds no misleading parameter information.

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 ('List') and resource ('risk-analysis engines') and goes further to name the payload contents: JSON-Schema config contracts, limits, and asOfDate support. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from get_analysis_result, list_supported_symbols, and run_risk_analysis without opening any 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?

Explicitly prescribes the sequencing: 'Call this before run_risk_analysis to learn the exact config fields each engine requires.' This names the dependent sibling and the condition that triggers this call, leaving nothing to inference.

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