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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a 'living' filter and trigger mapping but does not address return shape, pagination, or auth behavior beyond what the schema already specifies. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the trigger guidance is placed second. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple and annotations cover safety, but the description omits what 'living' means, whether limit has bounds, and what the returned list contains. Without an output schema, those gaps are not filled elsewhere, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 50%: authCode is well documented, but limit has only type/default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning—it never mentions limit or authCode—so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half of the parameters.

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 opens with 'List living Life Agents', a specific verb+resource that clearly states what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling life_* tools, but the 'living' qualifier and the trigger phrase provide enough scoping.

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?

'When the user says any agents / who’s on the desk — call this' gives explicit, concrete trigger conditions. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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