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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the data scope (owned objects, grouping by objective), which is useful. However, it does not disclose the behavior of parameters like limit, query, or include_dropped, nor any pagination or filtering semantics. Since annotations cover the core safety aspects, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It avoids fluff and communicates the core purpose efficiently. It earns a 4 for being well-structured, though it could add a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. The description explains the tool's scope but omits parameter semantics and output format. For a list/search tool, an agent needs to know how to use query, what limit does, and what 'include_dropped' affects. The description is incomplete for effective invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention limit, query, or include_dropped at all. An agent has no guidance on what 'query' searches, how limit affects results, or what 'include_dropped' means. This is a critical gap.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List and search'), the resource ('objects you own'), and adds specific context (curated charts/tables/figures, grouped by objective). This differentiates it from sibling tools like reports_list or datasets_list, which focus on different resources. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 description explains what the tool does and its scope, allowing an agent to infer when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Given the large sibling list, explicit guidance would improve selection accuracy.

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