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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: records are append-only, newest-first by default, and each carries a server-stamped actor. It also notes the site scope. These go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the most important use cases. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, mechanism, filtering/ordering, actor info, and scope. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors (filter, order, limit, actor stamp) but does not describe the response format. The schema explains workspace_id and latest_per_key in detail, so those are covered. The lack of output shape is a minor gap, but the description gives enough context for a query tool, especially with annotations covering safety.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the default ordering (newest-first) and clarifies that `where` uses field/value equality, which is partially in the schema. It also mentions the `limit` parameter but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. The added default behavior is useful, raising it to a 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'Use when the user asks who signed up, what was submitted, or wants to see the responses' and 'Queries a collection's append-only records'. It identifies the resource (site records) and differentiates from siblings like delete_site_record or set_site_data. The scope 'Scoped to a site you own' further clarifies what it operates on.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('Use when the user asks who signed up...'), but does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives. It lacks exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough to guide an agent to select this tool over others.

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