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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail—default ordering ('newest first')—but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or filtering, leaving most behavioral context to the schema.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes only necessary qualifiers (scope, ordering). Zero wasted words.

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 simple, read-only list tool with rich annotations and fully described parameters, the description is nearly sufficient—it states the action, scope, and ordering. It could be slightly more complete by noting the absence of filtering or by distinguishing itself from consent_grant_read, but the gaps are minor.

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%, so both parameters (limit, cursor) are thoroughly documented in the schema itself, including the legacy bare-array behavior and cursor semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate given the baseline for full coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('consent_grant rows'), plus a scope ('your') and ordering ('newest first'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling consent_grant_read, but the list-vs-read distinction is clear from the names.

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 name and description: this is the collection-listing counterpart to consent_grant_read. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the read tool or any other alternatives, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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