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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it enumerates status values (active/waiting/paused/draft), explains that `post` is null while awaiting the next post, and discloses a 13-month retention window with counting caveats for links_sent. That retention/counting detail is genuine behavioral context the agent cannot get from annotations.

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-loaded with the resource definition, then a scannable bullet breakdown of the three returned fields. Each bullet earns its place, though the links_sent bullet is dense enough that its counting rules require a second read.

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?

Complete for a read-only zero-parameter list tool: purpose, field semantics, and a sibling pointer are all present. Because an output schema exists, the field-by-field enumeration is partly redundant, but the semantic rules attached to it (counting, retention, null post) justify its presence.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to illuminate or obscure.

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?

Clearly identifies the resource — the user's Instagram automations, defined as 'keyword on a post -> DM with a link' — so an agent knows exactly what set is being listed. It distinguishes itself from get_automation_activity by scoping that sibling to per-recipient DM detail. It never states the verb 'lists/returns all' outright, relying on the name to carry that, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 closing sentence points to get_automation_activity for 'who got which DM and where people stopped,' which is a useful alternative pointer. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing for list_automations itself and no stated exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than directive.

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