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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds two real behavioral facts beyond them: the output is a ranked list intentionally stripped of figures, and the call costs nothing — both material to whether an agent should rely on this or escalate to a paid counterpart.

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 short sentences, with the substantive content (what the ranking measures) placed first and the pricing caveat last. The opening is a sentence fragment rather than a clean statement of action, which costs it a point but no words are wasted.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description is the sole carrier of return-shape information, and it only says 'ranked list without figures' — no indication of list length, ranking basis, or data freshness. It also omits how this sample relates to `niches`, which is the key thing an agent needs to choose between them.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline applies; no parameter detail was needed or omitted.

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 names the resource concretely (agent-infrastructure niches that are undersupplied among paying agents) and the returned form (a ranked list). It never names the sibling `niches` tool, so the distinction between this sample and the presumably fuller version is left implicit in 'without figures' and the title's 'free sample'.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Price: free' and 'sample' suggest reaching for this when no budget is available or a preview suffices, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. An agent must infer the trade-off against `niches` rather than being told it.

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