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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the plan/entitlement requirement, which the annotations do not. However, the second and third sentences duplicate the same plan condition in slightly contradictory wording ("a plan that includes DIY Blueprint tools" vs "a key whose plan includes them"), which muddies rather than clarifies behavior.

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 only three sentences yet still wastes one on a bare documentation URL and repeats the DIY Blueprint plan requirement twice with different phrasing. The core statement is front-loaded, but the redundancy and missing verb make it read as copy-pasted from a neighbouring tool's definition.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description's main remaining job is to signal what comes back and in what shape; it says only "the Blueprints sent to the address," with no detail on fields, count, pagination, or what an empty result means. The entitlement prerequisite is a genuine completion, but it is the only one.

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 takes zero parameters and additionalProperties is false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No spurious parameter guidance is introduced.

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 "AI Authority Blueprints sent to the address this key belongs to," which conveys scope (key-bound, delivery-based) but never states a verb — the listing action is only inferable from "list_" in the name. It also doesn't distinguish this from siblings such as get_my_blueprint_plan or get_blueprint_progress, so an agent must guess how this list differs from those reads.

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 gives an access precondition (key must be on a plan that includes DIY Blueprint tools) but no usage guidance at all — no indication of when to call this versus get_my_blueprint_plan, get_blueprint_progress, or get_blueprint_item_evidence. There are no exclusions and no stated workflow context.

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