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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation confined to the caller's own account. The description adds useful context by naming the personal utility types returned, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any behavioral constraints beyond that.

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 with no filler. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but every item earns its place by mapping to the kind enum, though the list format is slightly less scannable than a structured breakdown.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not route the agent away from overlapping siblings like get_utility or specific list_* tools, nor does it describe return behavior, leaving gaps an agent must resolve from the tool name and schema.

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 kind enum and passport_token are fully documented in the schema. The description supplies readable aliases for the enum values (e.g., 'wake-up calls' for wakeup), which adds minor interpretive value, but the baseline for complete schema coverage remains 3.

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 names the resource ('Your utilities') and enumerates all twelve kinds, which makes it clear this is a broad listing of the caller's utility resources. However, it omits an explicit verb like 'list' and does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_utility, leaving the differentiation to be inferred from the tool name.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_utility, locker_list, wakeup_list, or reminder_list. The enumeration of kinds implies scope but does not state when this broad listing is preferable to a more targeted sibling.

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