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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: it specifies the resource is 'public', lists example capabilities (webhooks, outbound HTTP, etc.), and notes that results match an 'optional query'. This goes beyond annotations and schema by clarifying the tool's domain scope.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a use-case invitation and return fields. Every clause adds value with zero redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has an output schema, so return values are structurally defined, but the description also mentions the key return fields, reinforcing them. With only two optional parameters, a clear use case, and safe read-only annotations, the description covers all necessary context for correct invocation.

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%, with both 'limit' and 'query' described in detail. The description mentions 'matching an optional query' and 'list' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Lists public Spala addons and integrations' with an optional query, and distinguishes this from sibling tools like template_list by specifying addons/integrations. It also enumerates return fields (ids, names, descriptions, tags), making the verb+resource+scope unambiguous.

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 states when to use it ('Invoke to discover capabilities such as...'), giving a clear use case. It doesn't mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the resource scope (addons vs templates) and sibling names provide context. No exclusions are needed for a list/read operation.

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