merit_list_units

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys a read-only listing operation, states that no filters are supported, and provides the underlying HTTP endpoint. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or authentication, but for a simple parameterless list the behavior is sufficiently clear.

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 front-loaded sentence that includes the resource, operation, endpoint, and a key limitation with no wasted words. Every element adds value.

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, simple list tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the verb, the endpoint, and the lack of filters. It could optionally describe the expected return shape, but no output schema exists and the absence of parameters lowers the complexity enough that this is not a major gap.

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 schema already covers them, matching the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools. The description reinforces this with 'No filters,' confirming there is nothing to configure or pass in.

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 states a specific operation: listing Merit Aktiva units of measure, and even includes the exact endpoint. This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling merit_* list tools, none of which target units of measure. The resource is 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 indicates the tool is for listing units of measure and notes that there are no filters, which gives basic context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or say when not to use this tool, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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