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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the default filtering of archived records and the reduced field set relative to assistants_get — information not present in any structured field.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the caveat appended. Every clause carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 the description partially compensates by noting which fields are absent from the list response. However, it says nothing about pagination mechanics despite limit/cursor parameters, nor about what an assistant record actually contains, leaving gaps for a 4-parameter list tool.

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 0% and none of the four parameters are explained. Only the archived behavior is implied (mapping to includeArchived); subAccountId, limit, and cursor — including that cursor is a pagination token — are left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list assistants) plus the scoping constraint (within a subaccount), and explicitly distinguishes itself from assistants_get by naming the fields only that tool returns. An agent can choose between the two without opening either schema.

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?

It clarifies the default archived-exclusion behavior via '(excludes archived by default)', which implicitly tells the agent when to set includeArchived, and it routes to assistants_get for the richer field set. But there is no explicit guidance on pagination usage or when a list vs. get is appropriate beyond that single note.

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