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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the returned-field list, which duplicates the existing output schema, and says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the identity of the returned data front-loaded before the routing condition. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to select and call it. It omits any statement of result size limits or whether it returns all algos versus a paginated subset, which is a minor gap given the schema already documents the filter.

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 single parameter is documented at 100% schema coverage ('Include archived algorithms (default false)'), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'archived' as a returned field loosely echoes include_inactive but adds no syntax or default behavior beyond the 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List saved algorithms') plus an enumeration of the returned fields, which tells the agent what a result looks like. It stops just short of 5 because it never names the sibling it replaces (get_algo) explicitly, leaving the differentiation to inference from 'rather than supplying its ID.'

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 clause 'Use when the user names an algo rather than supplying its ID' gives a concrete selection condition that implicitly points at the ID-based alternative. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative tool, so it falls short of the top band.

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