list_supported_utilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'No network, no cost,' which tells the agent this tool has no side effects and will not trigger charges, an important safety property for an agent choosing which tool to invoke. It also clarifies that the tool reports reachability and pricing rather than performing those operations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and the full list of returned details; the second adds the league-keys note and the crucial no-cost/no-network guarantee. Every clause earns its place.

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?

This is a zero-parameter introspection tool with an output schema, so the description only needs to explain what the tool lists and any behavioral caveats. It covers the utilities, actors, pricing, spend cap, reachability, league keys, and the fact that it is free and offline. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description successfully explains what the tool does and what it returns, leaving no ambiguity about invocation.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('utilities this server exposes'), then enumerates exactly what will be returned: the Apify Actor, per-event price, hard spend cap argument, reachability, and league keys. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are the actual utilities being listed.

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 makes the tool's role as a discovery/introspection endpoint clear: it lists server utilities and key details such as cost and reachability. It also notes that league keys for sports_scores are returned here, giving a concrete reason to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when to call it.

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