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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the operation 'does not cost credits' and each entry carries icpId, name and criteria. It doesn't add much else (e.g., ordering or whether zero ICPs is possible), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return contents, then the follow-up action. No filler or repetition; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 zero-parameter list tool with a published output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, that it is free, and what to do with the result. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does document the shape of each returned entry (icpId, optional name, criteria), which is helpful orientation even though an output schema exists.

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 and resource ('List your saved ICPs') and immediately expands the acronym to Ideal Customer Profiles, defining them as reusable discovery criteria. It is clearly distinguishable from save_icp and run_icp, both of which appear among the siblings.

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 gives a concrete next step — take an `icpId` from this list and pass it to run_icp to start a discovery — which implies this is the lookup step before running. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., to create a new ICP, use save_icp), leaving that inference to the agent.

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