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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the catalog is 'Free' and implies a read-only reference role by warning to read before paying. However, it never explicitly states that the tool has no side effects, does not charge, or what the agent should expect in the response. The cost transparency is useful, but the operational behavior is only implied.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the most important fact ('Free.') and a compact list of what the catalog contains. Every phrase contributes; there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.

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 catalog with no output schema, the description covers the key decision points: it's free, it's a full catalog, it lists pricing and validity, and it should be read before paying. It could explicitly say something like 'returns a list...' to set return-shape expectations, but for this simple tool the lack of that detail is a minor gap, not a critical one.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain. The description doesn't need to document inputs; it simply tells the user this is a catalog to consult. The '0 params = baseline 4' rule applies, and the description fully aligns with that expectation.

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 identifies this as a capability catalog with a specific scope: what each capability answers, price tiers in USDC on Base, answer validity, and shared/private status. It also positions itself relative to the other Tereno tools with the directive 'Read this before paying for anything.' This is far from the tautological 'Process' example; it tells an agent exactly what the tool is for.

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 phrase 'Read this before paying for anything' gives explicit timing guidance: consult this catalog before any paid action. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like tereno_price or tereno_publish, nor does it say when not to use it, so it stops just short of being fully explicit.

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