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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the dataset size (12 monuments, 60 codes), the meaning of randomized suffixes, and the null slug behavior for Cargo Ship. This gives the agent enough behavioral context to interpret the data correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core resource, then explains field meanings and edge cases in a compact sequence. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the returned data, and it does: it covers the monument count, code count, the `codes`, `randomized`, and `slug` fields, and the Cargo Ship null case. Nothing needed to call and interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden. Per the rubric, a parameterless tool receives a baseline of 4 when the schema is effectively complete.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: CCTV camera codes grouped by monument, with Computer Station identifiers. It is specific enough to distinguish this reference lookup from sibling tools like get_monument or list_monuments without opening the schema.

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 implied by the resource name and the note that this is fixed reference data, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus get_monument or list_monuments. It provides no exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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