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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: output is newest-first, owner-scoped, and requires an Authorization Bearer token. It does not describe pagination or return shape, but the behavioral context it adds beyond annotations is solid.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and functional, and the auth/scope detail earns its place. The recovery narrative is slightly verbose but serves a real purpose by preventing a costly mistake. Overall it is focused and not padded.

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?

For a two-parameter list tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: scope, ordering, optional filtering, auth, and the recovery use case. It could mention the shape of returned rigs, but no output schema exists and the recovery framing makes the important result (an ID) implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents both `limit` and `query` clearly. The description reinforces that `query` narrows by name/summary and is optional, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List YOUR saved rigs, newest first', which clearly identifies the tool's operation and scope. It also distinguishes itself from rig_author by explaining that rig_search is for recovery, not creation.

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 explicitly frames when to use this tool: 'This is how an agent RECOVERS', and contrasts it with rig_author, warning against re-authoring from scratch and quietly creating a duplicate. It also states the auth requirement and owner-scoping, giving clear conditions for invocation.

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