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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying what content is included (limits, category counts, app links, documentation URLs) and explicitly notes the tool covers what GigNGo 'does not do (limits)', which is additional behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list. Each listed item (limits, category count, job routing, app links, API URLs) is distinct and contributes value, and the usage note is appended without repetition or fluff.

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, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the purpose, the content envelope, and the trigger scenario. Sibling tools are all action-oriented or data-specific, so there is no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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 parametershare, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information because none exists; there is nothing more the schema or description could clarify.

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 ('Get an overview') and resource ('GigNGo'), then enumerates exact content: limits, service category count, how jobs reach locals, app links, and API doc URLs. It ends by tying it to general 'what is GigNGo' questions, which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_service_categories or search_local_workers.

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 explicitly says 'Call this for general "what is GigNGo" questions,' giving a clear when-to-use condition. It does not name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is sufficient context to route an agent correctly.

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