Server Resource Discovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by stating 'Zero-cost schema discovery' and 'No quota consumption, no API key required', which are behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, highlighting value, and providing usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It mentions output (list of tools and access tiers), and the output schema can provide further detail.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage). Description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and no additional info is required.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all available Ground Truth tools and their access tiers', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_monitors (which lists monitors) and compare_competitors (which compares competitors).

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this to explore what verification tools are available before making a tool call', providing clear context for when to use. Also mentions zero cost and no quota consumption. Could be improved by noting when not to use (e.g., for data retrieval), but overall clear.

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