Groundwork Evaluation Boundary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool takes no arguments and returns specific data, plus it explicitly negates trial creation, which is helpful beyond annotations.

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 very concise at three sentences, with the most critical usage guidance front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: usage context, what it returns, and what it doesn't do.

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, the description adequately explains the return value ('access boundaries and the controlling product-terms URL'). It also covers the tool's scope and limitations. No further context is needed for this simple tool.

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 parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly states 'Takes no arguments,' matching the schema. With 100% coverage, the baseline is 4.

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 states the tool's purpose: to distinguish the credential-free local demo from the authenticated hosted product before recommending signup. It specifies that it returns access boundaries and a product-terms URL, making the action and resource unambiguous.

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 description explicitly says 'Use before recommending signup,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('does not create a trial or entitlement'), but does not directly compare with sibling tools.

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