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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. Description adds permission requirement ('admin+') and technical context (RFC 8693, on-behalf-of token policy). No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects are disclosed, but the basic safety profile is covered.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, resource, technical context, and permissions. No extraneous 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 simple list operation with one parameter (fully described), good annotations, and an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: the action, resource, technical term, and permission level. No gaps identified.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'slug' with schema description 'The organisation's handle.' Tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond this, so baseline of 3 is 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?

Description uses specific verb 'List', identifies resource as 'org's RFC 8693 delegation grants', and clarifies scope as 'on-behalf-of token policy'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add and remove by naming the list action and noting 'admin+' permission level.

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?

Clearly states this tool lists delegation grants for the org. Permission level 'admin+' is implicit guidance. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, though sibling naming provides differentiation context.

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