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

The annotations already mark the call read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: newest-first ordering, hasMore flag semantics, and guidance that pagination is not the preferred path.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, alternative tool, and pagination behavior with no filler. The parenthetical 'split group' is slightly cryptic, but it does not undermine the front-loaded, efficient structure.

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?

Given the rich input schema, safety annotations, and output schema, the description covers the key operational concerns: what is listed, in what order, when to call get_splitter, and how to handle hasMore/pagination. No critical call-precondition 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?

All 6 parameters have 100% schema description coverage, including enum meanings and workspace/environment constraints, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds pagination context around nextPageToken/hasMore, but no significant new meaning for individual parameters.

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 opens with a specific action and target ('List the workspace's splitters') and adds ordering ('newest first'). It also points to get_splitter as the tool for a specific one's config, which separates it from sibling list/get tools.

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?

It explicitly routes to get_splitter when a specific splitter's config is needed. It also gives concrete pagination guidance: prefer narrowing filters over paginating, and use nextPageToken only when every item is needed.

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