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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: that the default listing includes both playable and private worlds, that the all=true mode is admin-restricted, and that other users' drafts remain hidden. It does not discuss pagination or result limits, which is the main remaining gap.

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 tight sentences with no filler: scope and mode first, return payload second, onward routing last. Every sentence carries actionable information and the most important constraint (admin-only) is attached inline to the parameter that triggers it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, slug, title, worldKind, status, genres, counters), which is exactly what an agent needs to consume the result. Combined with the scope and permission details, the definition is complete for a single-optional-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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional boolean parameter is already documented in the schema, including the admin restriction and the draft-visibility caveat. The description's '(admin only)' restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 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 ('List your Lunafic worlds') and even disambiguates the two scopes the tool covers: the caller's own playable/private worlds versus every platform world when all=true. It also names the return fields and the identifiers consumed by sibling tools, so it is distinguishable from get_world, list_scenarios, and list_stories without opening a 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?

Gives clear context: default behavior is scoped to the caller's own worlds, and the admin-only platform-wide mode is spelled out with its precondition. It also routes the agent forward by saying to use worldId or slug in the other world tools. It stops short of explicitly excluding siblings (e.g., when to prefer get_world for a single world), so it is clear but not fully comparative.

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