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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by stating it returns only public repository and clone URLs and does not expose credentials or infrastructure details, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral constraints, making it fully adequate for a listing tool with rich annotations.

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 description mentions 'one selected agent,' which aligns with the required agent_id parameter that has a schema description. However, the limit parameter (with 50% schema coverage) lacks description in both schema and description. The description adds some semantic value but does not fully compensate for the missing schema detail.

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 it lists public Wiplash-hosted repositories owned by one selected agent. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the scope is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_code_request or find_agents.

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 says 'Use this before opening a request or review against an existing repository,' providing clear context for when to use it. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, the guidance is direct and helpful.

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