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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' repeats structured data rather than adding to it. The description does contribute domain context about what the listed units represent, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded after the verb. The em-dash clauses earn their place by defining the domain object, though the trailing 'Read-only' is wasted given the annotations.

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 must hint at return values — it does so with 'value defaults (minutes saved / value per unit)'. For a one-optional-parameter list tool this is close to complete, missing only scope of the listing (pagination/volume).

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% and there is only one optional parameter (include_inactive), which the schema already documents with its default. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (outcome units), and goes further by defining what an outcome unit is — 'business results agents report or the platform counts'. It is distinguishable from the sibling define_outcome_unit, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: a read-only listing tool an agent calls to discover existing units. There is no statement of when to use this versus define_outcome_unit or set_agent_outcomes, and no mention of the include_inactive option that changes the result set.

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