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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, pagination, or result format. It is consistent with annotations but does not enhance them.

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?

One concise sentence with the action verb and scope front-loaded, no unnecessary words, making it efficient.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately captures what the tool does. However, it does not mention the expected return format or any limitations (e.g., pagination), but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 schema describes app_id as 'The app ID,' and the description mentions 'for an app,' which aligns. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add extra semantics; it merely confirms the parameter's role, which is already clear.

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 states a specific verb 'List' and resource 'platform A/B tests' scoped to an app. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_ab_test, update_ab_test, and get_ab_test_stats by focusing on listing all tests rather than individual operations.

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?

The description indicates that it lists tests for an app but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus related tools like get_ab_test_stats or create_ab_test. Context is clear, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided, leaving usage to inference.

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