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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the default exclusion of rejected groups, newest-first ordering, and included fields (status, record count, master, match score). Does not mention pagination limits.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then filtering behavior. No wasted 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?

Covers default behavior, filtering, ordering, and returned fields for a 6-param list tool. Minor gap: no mention of pagination/default limit despite limit/offset params, though that's largely in the schema.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds the semantic that omitting status excludes rejected groups and that run_id scopes to a single run, but doesn't add syntax 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (duplicate groups), plus scope (on this connection, newest first). Distinguishes from siblings like get_duplicate_group (singular) and list_runs by describing the triage-queue content distinctly.

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 describes default behavior (no status returns whole queue except rejected) and how status/run_id narrow results. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and doesn't name sibling alternatives like get_duplicate_group for fetching a single group.

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