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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: results are 'lean summaries' rather than full objects, the item field set, and the notable constraint that timestamps support only __gte/__lt with a half-open range idiom. Auth requirements and rate limits are not mentioned, keeping it below 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-loads the return shape and item fields before the filtering mechanics, which is the right order for a list tool. The operator list is repeated almost verbatim from the fieldFilters schema, so there is some redundancy, but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description explains the return envelope and item contents itself. With six parameters including a nested free-form filter map, it covers pagination, sort, prefix search, and structured operators well enough to call the tool correctly first time.

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 schema defers to the description for the actual values ('see this tool's sort fields', 'see this tool's filter prefixes'), and the description supplies them: name:/uuid: prefixes, sortable fields created_at/updated_at/install_count, and the full operator matrix. This is genuine compensation, not restatement.

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 and filter Mallory software extensions') plus the exact return envelope {items,total,offset,limit}. It also separates itself from the detail sibling by naming getSoftwareExtension for the full object, so an agent can choose 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to getSoftwareExtension when full detail is needed, and the filter section clarifies that no prefix means a default name/text search. It does not state exclusions beyond that one routing rule, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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