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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the sort order and implies a safe read-only listing operation. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, output shape, or how the default limit interacts with the result set, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 tight sentences with the core action and ordering front-loaded, followed by the intended usage. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence is a fairly generic value statement.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with fully covered schema and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, ordering, and a usage cue. The main omission is any hint about the result size or pagination when limit is large, but otherwise it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so both limit and min_pieces are already fully documented in the schema ('0 = all', default values). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when structured fields do the work.

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 all principles in the taxonomy') plus the ordering ('sorted by piece count'), which is more than a bare name restatement. It implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling get_principle, but does not explicitly differentiate from principle, principle_cooccurrence, or find_tensions.

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?

Offers one implied use case ('find which structural patterns are most represented in the corpus'), which helps an agent decide when to reach for it. It gives no exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g., when to prefer get_principle or principle_cooccurrence instead), so routing remains partly inferential.

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