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

The description discloses that this is 'Static markdown', which is a useful behavioral trait indicating no dynamic data or side effects. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It doesn't mention that no parameters are needed or that the content is fixed, though 'Static markdown' partially covers this.

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 description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key information: the tool name, the two tiers, pricing, and what it covers. No wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter, static content tool, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and that it's static. It could mention that it's a reference/comparison rather than a transactional tool, but 'Static markdown' covers the essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by summarizing what content the tool returns (pricing, inclusions, target audience).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing TradeBasis subscription tiers (Lite vs Pro) with pricing and target audience. It uses a specific verb ('pricing and tiers') and resource ('TradeBasis subscription tiers'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the subject matter is distinct enough from 'about' and 'research_library'.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when a user asks about TradeBasis plans, pricing, or what's included in each tier. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names (about, research_library) provide enough context for an agent to infer the right choice.

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