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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context: results are in `ord` ascending, includeSpec yields a much larger response, allowDone gates completed features, and paging reuses nextCursor with the same parameters. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentences that lead with what the tool returns, then layer the optional parameters and paging. No filler; slightly clause-heavy but 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 read-only paginated list with full schema coverage and annotations handling safety, the description covers ordering, filtering flags, response-size tradeoff, and pagination. Only the sibling-routing question (vs feature_search) remains open.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema lacks: the coupling of includeSpec to spec/specRevision with a size warning, the allowDone filter effect, and the requirement that the next page use nextCursor *with the same 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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (features of a product or one version), plus the web-order sorting (`ord` ascending), which immediately tells an agent what this returns. It does not name the closest sibling (feature_search) as the alternative, so an agent must infer the split between a paginated overview and a search.

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?

"for an overview of what a product contains" implies the browse/overview use case, and the includeSpec/allowDone notes hint at when responses balloon. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs feature_search, no prerequisites, and no stated exclusions.

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