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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is that the payload is documentation rather than data, plus the 'Not advice' disclaimer. It doesn't say what form the content comes back in or whether it is static, which matters for an agent deciding whether to re-fetch.

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?

A single short sentence plus a two-word disclaimer, front-loading the resource and its purpose with no filler. The brevity is close to being cryptic — 'Not advice' and '/bots.md' are terse to the point of needing interpretation.

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, no output schema and a read-only annotation, the description carries the remaining burden of telling the agent what it gets back. It signals a markdown guide but not its scope or shape, leaving a small but real gap for an agent deciding whether this document answers its question.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline applies. The description does not need to explain arguments for a zero-arg call.

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 identifies a specific artifact (the /bots.md guide on building a copy bot and steering it with find_traders' filters), which is clearly distinct from siblings like find_traders or get_trader. It never states the verb explicitly (retrieve/read a document), so the operation is inferred rather than declared.

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?

Referencing find_traders' filters implies this guide should be read in conjunction with find_traders, which is useful routing. However, it never says when to call this versus get_copy_recipe or get_trader, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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