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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is not the sole carrier. It still adds genuine context beyond them: 'Requires no credentials' and the fact that other tools' refusals name an access tier, which tells the agent this call cannot fail on auth.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's content and followed by the call condition. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 input parameters and no output schema, an agent needs only to know when to call it and what it yields conceptually (tiers and their cost/benefit), both of which the description supplies.

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; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 purpose: explaining what the server is, what each access tier includes, and how to obtain access. This is unmistakably a meta/documentation tool, cleanly distinguished from the data-retrieval siblings get_legislation and search_instruments.

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 trigger conditions: 'Call this first if you are unsure what the server offers, or after any tool refuses you.' It even explains how a refusal (naming a tier) maps back to this tool, leaving no inference required.

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