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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by specifying that results are structured objects rather than marketing bullets and by enumerating the meaningful feature attributes returned.

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?

Two sentences carry all needed information with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, the output shape is enumerated compactly, and the stated use case justifies the tool's existence.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned fields, which compensates for the missing schema. The optional filter is fully documented in the input schema, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema covers the single optional on_device_only parameter with a complete description at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter explanation. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but none is necessary here.

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 identifies the action (list), the resource (Yappy features), and the exact shape of the returned objects: id, name, description, on-device status, network requirement, and macOS permission. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_system_requirements or get_pricing_plans.

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 description gives a concrete use case: building an accurate comparison against another dictation tool. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set makes the intended context clear enough.

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