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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'read-only' restatement in the description adds little. However, 'not metered' is genuinely new behavioral information (no quota/cost impact) and the note that results are summaries with full bodies elsewhere sets expectations about result weight.

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, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the get_declaration routing hint and the filter note. Every clause carries information; none is filler.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail needn't be spelled out, and the description still summarizes the returned fields. It covers scope (admitted only), filtering, the alternative for full bodies, and cost behavior — enough for correct selection and invocation of a two-parameter read tool.

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 parameters are already documented, including the 8-value enum for kind. The description reinforces the enum by characterizing it as 'one of the eight authorable kinds' and framing the filter as optional narrowing, but adds no format or value-level detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Lists admitted Standard Declarations as summaries') and enumerates exactly which fields are returned (identity, scope, kind, attribution, admission time, application state with reason). It also distinguishes itself from get_declaration by noting that full bodies stay there, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_declaration when full bodies are needed, and explains that the optional kind filter narrows results to a single authorable kind. It gives clear positive usage context but no explicit 'when not to use this' beyond the get_declaration split, and doesn't distinguish itself from other list_* siblings.

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