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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned row fields (hostType/packageId/serviceId, requiresOAuth with tri-state null, actionCount, triggerCount), the default row cap of 30, and the follow-on call pattern. It is silent on pagination/offset behavior and any permission requirements for workspaceId, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with scope and purpose, and every clause carries information. The telegraphic fragment style ('Shared extensions: search_shared_extensions or search_extensions.') is dense but readable and wastes no words.

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 no output schema, the row-field enumeration is the right call and is present. However, a list tool capped by limit usually implies pagination, and nothing says whether more rows can be fetched or how ordering works, leaving a real gap for an agent planning to enumerate services.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: search is explained as filtering by name/integrationName, limit as a row cap with a default of 30, and isAgentTool as the switch that also returns knowledge bases. Only workspaceId is left to inference from 'this workspace's own'.

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 this workspace's own extension services') plus the row granularity and the entity types covered (custom extensions, MCP servers, knowledge bases under isAgentTool). It explicitly scopes to 'this workspace's own', which separates it from search_shared_extensions/search_extensions named in the same breath.

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 routes shared-extension lookups to search_shared_extensions or search_extensions and tells the agent the natural next step is list_extension_methods with the returned triple. What's missing is any explicit 'do not use this when…' for the sibling list_knowledge_bases, which overlaps when isAgentTool is true.

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