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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation with no destructive effects. The description adds domain meaning by explaining what a system is, but it does not cover pagination behavior, return shape, or permissions, so it adds only moderate behavioral value.

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 short sentences and front-loads the core action before the filtering option. It is efficient and easy to scan, with no wasted text.

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 complete schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is that it does not mention search or pagination, although the schema covers those parameters.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including pagination, search, and system_group_id. The description mentions only the system group filter and adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ("List systems") and clarifies the domain with concrete examples such as HVAC, plumbing, and electrical systems. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like list_project_systems or list_system_groups, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It implies when to use the tool by noting the optional system group filter, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_project_systems or list_system_groups. The guidance is adequate but leaves comparison to inference.

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