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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (id, name, family, units, description, live status) and the non-ranking behavior, which is helpful. However, it does not describe the response structure (array vs. object, pagination), empty-result behavior, or whether the catalogue is static or computed on demand, leaving the agent to guess those traits.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the three paragraphs each serve a distinct role (what is returned, family definitions, usage guidance). Minor redundancy — 'This tool returns a catalogue' echoes the opening line — and the slightly lengthy family expansion cost a point, but the structure remains logical and scannable.

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 compensates by enumerating the output fields (id, name, family, units, description, live status) and documenting the three families, which is adequate for a simple catalogue endpoint. It does not describe the exact JSON shape, but for a listing tool of this complexity, the field list and family definitions are sufficient context.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds value on top by explaining the family enum values ('credit' = credit-market assessments, 'onchain' = commodity chain metrics, 'market' = external context) and reinforcing live_only's meaning. This goes beyond the schema's terser phrasing without being redundant.

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 and resource ('Returns the catalogue of Aletheia indicators computed from The Gavel Protocol and the Bitcoin chain') and lists the output fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_gavel_indicator ('Use this to discover what is available, then call get_gavel_indicator with an id') and clarifies what it does not do ('it does not rank indicators or advise which to use'), making selection unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to discover what is available, then call get_gavel_indicator with an id') and an explicit when-not-to-use boundary ('does not rank indicators or advise which to use'). It names the primary alternative (get_gavel_indicator), but could be stronger by mentioning other overlapping siblings like get_mvrv or list_onchain_indicators, so it falls just short of full coverage.

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