my_preferred_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it never states whether this is a read-only listing, what 'margin' and 'note' mean, or in what order results come back. The only clue that it is a read operation is the possessive framing, which is inference rather than disclosure.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but the trailing 'with margin and note' is cryptic enough that the brevity reads as under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only place a caller could learn what a 'preferred tool' record looks like or what 'margin' and 'note' contain. For a zero-parameter read tool that is cheap to call, that gap is tolerable but still a real omission.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The phrase 'with margin and note' refers to returned fields rather than inputs and is too vague to count as added value.

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 phrase 'the catalog tools the user favours' does suggest a listing of preferred tools, but it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and 'with margin and note' is opaque. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like my_tools, get_preferences, or ranking, so an agent cannot confidently tell what this returns versus those.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of prefer_tool/unprefer_tool as the way preferences get populated. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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