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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those traits. It adds useful behavioral detail by explaining that results are numbered, each number is a link, and facts should be cited as a number plus link. It does not mention pagination or result-size behavior.

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 tight sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the scope and output format, then adds the citation convention, so every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only annotations, fully described single parameter, and absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the return shape and citation format. Minor omissions such as pagination or result-size behavior keep it from being fully comprehensive.

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 100%, and the sole store parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its optional default behavior. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline for fully described schemas.

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 resource and result format: every fact in the store, numbered, with each number linked to the fact. The title supplies the verb "List," but the description itself does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as getManual or startStep.

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 implied by the scope (retrieve every fact) and there is explicit guidance on citing a returned fact as [F3](<link>). However, it does not state when to choose this over alternatives like getManual or ask, nor does it include exclusions.

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