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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds extra behavioral context: 'No LLM call' (performance), 'most recent first' (ordering), the note that both per-model enrichment and arbitration records may exist for one entity, and the pagination advice. These go beyond annotation coverage and add value without contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, then filters, then alternatives, then a practical pagination note. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Complete for a read-only list tool: output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and the description covers usage alternatives, ordering, pagination, and the multi-record nuance. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 71%, so baseline is 3. The description lists the filterable parameters (job_id, type, success, model, search) but only summarizes them without adding new semantics; it does not mention page or page_size, though the schema already documents defaults and constraints. No significant value added beyond schema.

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 (list) and resource (records) with clear modifiers: 'compact, paginated records in your organization, most recent first.' It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming get_record and list_entity_states, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Filter by job_id to retrieve persisted outputs of an asynchronous workflow' and directly points to alternatives: 'Use get_record for full output and failures; use list_entity_states for current merged entity state instead of run history.' Also advises on pagination: 'Fetch every page when a job produces more than one page of records.' No gaps.

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