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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: pagination, required scopes, direct-vs-proposal execution mode, and the reason an action is unavailable. It stops short of describing page-size limits or the cursor contract.

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 capability list is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, with pagination as a trailing note. Every clause adds a distinct returned field, though the sentence is long enough that it reads as a list in prose form.

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?

For a read-only catalog tool with an output schema, the definition is close to complete: it explains what an entry contains and why an action may be unusable. The only real gap is filter/pagination semantics, which the schema also leaves undocumented.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says only 'Paginated.' The product and effect_class filters (both enums) and the limit/cursor contract are never mentioned, leaving half the parameter surface undocumented in both the schema and the 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 (every action Xora can take, plus actions withheld by the owner) and enumerates the metadata returned for each, so an agent knows this is a capability-catalog tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from xora_action_details or xora_action_status, which are the nearest siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of scopes, effect classes, and 'whether this connection can use it now' signals a discovery step before acting, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to xora_action_details for deeper inspection.

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