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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: what dimensions each entry is tagged with, the explicit caveat 'Listing is not endorsement', and how additions are proposed. It does not mention pagination or result size, but the safety profile is well covered.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the list contains, followed by the tagging scheme and the endorsement caveat. The final sentence about proposing additions is somewhat tangential to invocation but does inform the tool's governance model without bloat.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and a single optional filter keeps the surface small. The description adequately covers content, tags, and caveats; only the when-to-use dimension relative to sibling discovery tools is left unaddressed.

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% and there is only one optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's enumeration of categories (payment, identity, discovery, attestation) loosely maps to the category filter, but adds no syntax or matching detail beyond the schema's own substring-filter description.

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 states a specific resource (a curated list of payment, identity, discovery and attestation tools) and the attributes it carries (open/proprietary, holds funds, maturity), which clearly separates it from siblings like read_board or checkpoint. The verb 'list' is implied rather than stated, but the scope is 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?

There is no guidance on when an agent should call this rather than read_board, for_you, or other discovery siblings. The only procedural note concerns how humans/agents propose additions to the list, which is not about invocation. Usage must be inferred from the tool name.

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