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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each briq carries state, host and cost, which is genuine return-shape context, but it omits the default exclusion of destroyed briqs and any pagination or result-size behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; scope and return fields come first. Its brevity is efficient, though it leaves the parameter gaps noted elsewhere.

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-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers scope and return fields, but the undocumented 'stack' parameter and the implicit destroyed-exclusion default leave real holes an agent must guess at.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'all' is documented inline as 'include destroyed', while 'stack' has no schema description at all. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does nothing to close the gap on 'stack' or to explain what passing 'all' changes.

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?

A specific verb (List) plus the resource (briqs) and scope ('of this key/team'), and it previews the returned fields (state, host, cost). That is enough to separate it from mutation siblings like briq_destroy or single-resource siblings like briq_status, though it never names an alternative.

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 says what is listed but never when to reach for it instead of briq_status or briq_catalog, nor any precondition for use. Nothing tells the agent when this list view is the right choice over the sibling tools.

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