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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific output fields (status, mode, document count, domain preset), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention any additional behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, or authentication requirements, so it provides only marginal added value.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, and directly lists the output fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple list operation with no output schema, but the description enumerates the exact fields returned (status, mode, document count, domain preset), providing sufficient detail for the agent to understand what to expect. Given the low complexity and the strong annotations, the description is complete enough for a tool of this kind.

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 input schema is empty. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 applies, and the description does not introduce any confusion about parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool lists all ColdState indexes with specific attributes (status, mode, document count, domain preset). The verb 'List' and resource 'indexes' are unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like coldstate_domains or coldstate_stats, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without any context about typical use cases or exclusions. For example, it does not say to use this to get an overview before searching, or to avoid it if you need document-level details. No usage guidance is provided.

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