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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the non-obvious ordering ("newest first"), which is genuine added context, but says nothing about pagination behavior or that results are unbounded by default.

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 short sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded and zero filler. Every word 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?

For a two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description plus fully documented schema is sufficient to call it correctly. The only gap is that the agent must read the schema to learn about the bare-array default, which is a minor reliance rather than a missing piece.

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% — limit and cursor are fully documented in the schema, including the legacy bare-array vs. { items, next_cursor, limit } envelope distinction. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 + resource ("List your desk_surface rows") and adds the sort order ("newest first"). The List/Create/Read/Update/Delete sibling family makes the operation obvious, though the description never explicitly distinguishes itself from desk_surface_read.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus desk_surface_read (single row) or when a filter/search is preferable. Usage is only implied by the word "List"; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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