list_formula_pointers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the data is bundled and requires no network, but omits read-only/mutation status, return behavior, and any permission or side-effect details.

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 single terse fragment with zero wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than optimally structured. It lacks an explicit action statement and front-loading is limited to the resource phrase.

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 local lookup with no output schema, the description should more clearly state what is returned and in what form. Saying 'canonical FairHelm formula page URLs' is minimally adequate, but return shape and usage context remain implicit.

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, and the scoring rule gives a baseline of 4 when no parameters exist. The description introduces no conflicting parameter information.

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 identifies the resource as canonical FairHelm formula page URLs and notes they are bundled, which distinguishes it from the yacht-spec siblings. However, it is a noun phrase without an explicit verb or statement that the tool lists/returns them, so the action is only implied.

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?

No indication of when to call this instead of get_yacht_specs, compute_yacht_coefficients, or other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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