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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond these: it explicitly discloses that study bodies are not returned, that they require a subscriber key, and that this endpoint serves only metadata. This is meaningful extra transparency about access control and content scope.

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. It front-loads the core action and return scope, then immediately states the metadata-only constraint and the relevant alternative. Every sentence 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?

The tool has a comprehensive input schema, a full output schema, and annotations covering read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description completes the picture by explaining the paid-tier restriction, the relationship to get_study, and the intended use case. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters (lang, limit, query, cursor) including constraints, defaults, and pagination behavior. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline score.

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 verb ('List'), a precise resource ('Analytics Legends deep-research studies'), and enumerates the returned fields (edition, as-of date, audience, word count, canonical URL). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_study by calling out 'METADATA ONLY', so an agent can easily tell this tool apart from its sibling.

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 explicit usage context: use this to tell a reader a study exists and where to read it, while full bodies are served by get_study with a subscriber key. It clearly routes the agent to the correct sibling tool and states the boundary between metadata and paid deliverables.

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