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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant rather than additive. The description does add useful context that the returned blocks include their parameters, but says nothing about catalog size, pagination, or whether the catalog is static across calls. With annotations plus an output schema covering the rest, this is adequate but thin on added behavior.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, contents second, workflow chain third, safety last. The final 'Read-only' is the only wasted phrase since annotations already state it, but the rest is dense and earns its space.

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?

A zero-parameter, read-only catalog tool with a full output schema needs only to say what it returns and where it sits in the workflow. Both are covered, so an agent has everything required to call it correctly and act on the result.

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 no argument semantics to explain and the baseline applies. The description compensates slightly by characterizing what the parameterless response contains ('each with its parameters').

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the building blocks of a paper strategy spec') and enumerates exactly what the catalog contains (filters, entries, conditions, stops, targets, sizing, session and re-entry options). This clearly distinguishes it from list_filters and search_filters, which cover only a slice of that space.

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?

It gives an explicit ordering: read this before writing a spec, then validate_paper_strategy, save_paper_strategy, and start_paper_strategy. Each downstream sibling is named with the condition that triggers it, 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.