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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: pagination discipline ('Pass next_cursor verbatim as cursor ... keep the other arguments unchanged; it is null on the last page'), empty-result semantics, the locked-page constraint, and the per-item payload structure.

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?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded, and the dense sentences each carry distinct facts (outcome definitions, item shape, counts, pagination). It is long and some sentences chain several clauses, but little is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does: it describes the item structure (claim group, latest answer excerpt, site page, other page, active decision), the answered flag, locked-page meaning, the four count fields, cursor behavior, and the empty-list case.

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 coverage is 0% across 6 params, but the description supplies meaning for outcome (defines each of the four values), cursor (verbatim reuse, null on last page), and window/filters (inherited from devtune_get_accuracy). limit, intent, and platform are never explained, so the compensation is real but incomplete.

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 ... Accuracy claim list') plus scope ('same window and filters as devtune_get_accuracy, most answers first'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from devtune_list_accuracy_contradictions and devtune_get_accuracy. An agent can route to it without opening the 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?

Names the alternative (devtune_list_accuracy_contradictions) and the exact condition that selects it ('For contradictions grouped by the site sentence they conflict with'), and ties scope to devtune_get_accuracy. This is explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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