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

No annotations are present, so the description alone must carry the behavioral burden. It does so by stating that the catalog is free, that proposed capabilities are not built or sold, and that naming one at the demand-pledges endpoint is how future prerequisites are chosen. This preempts assumptions about what the catalog can provide or charge for.

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 tight three sentences that front-lod the purpose and value ('Free. Full capability catalog...'), then gives the only important before-action, and then clarifies a potentially confusing section. Every sentence contributes useful context, with no filler.

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, no-output-schema catalog tool, the description is complete: it names what data will be found (answers, prices, validity, slar change/private), explains that the catalog is free, and handles the 'proposed' exception. There are no unexpected params, return fields, absent pagination, or auth requirements left unclear enough to matter.

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 schema has zero properties and complete schema description coverage (100%), so by the baseline, params need no additional explanation. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is necessary for a parameterless catalog tool.

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 the complete capability catalog for Tereno: what each capability answers, price tiers in USDC on Base, answer validity, and sharing status. It also explains that the proposed section represents unbuilt capabilities and routes those requests to a specific POST endpoint, which distinguishes this catalog from indirect siblings.

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 contains explicit guidance: 'Read this before paying for anything,' and explains that proposing an unnamed capability is done via POST /api/v1/demand-pledges. This tells an agent exactly when to consult the catalog first and seeds them away from treating proposed items as purchasable features.

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