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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — only confirmed and visible authors are returned — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result shape.

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?

A single clause with zero filler, and the scope qualifier is front-loaded where it matters most.

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?

A simple, annotation-covered read tool, so not much is demanded, but the description omits that results are paginated via a cursor and says nothing about what an author entry contains, which an agent selecting this tool would want.

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 50%: 'cursor' is documented in-schema while 'limit' has only an integer range. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — it never hints at pagination or a page size, leaving the undocumented limit to be inferred.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list authors) plus a meaningful scope qualifier — 'confirmed visible' — which tells the agent these are assignable authors rather than all users. Purpose is clear without needing the schema opened.

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 clause 'for assigning content' implies the use case (picking an author when creating or updating content), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative among the many sibling content tools.

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