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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description itself adds no behavior beyond that: it says nothing about pagination (pageSize/pageToken exist), ordering, default result set, or whether archived items are excluded by default.

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 fragment with zero padding; the scope list is placed immediately after the action. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

The tool has 4 top-level parameters, a nested filter with seven fields, and an output schema, yet the description covers none of the filtering or paging mechanics. For an entity with this much surface area, one clipped sentence leaves the agent guessing at how to narrow results.

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 only 25%, so the schema does not explain most of the nested filter object. The description partially compensates by hinting at the meaningful filter axes (root vs fragments vs company-owned), which map to filter.kind and filter.ownerType, but pageSize, pageToken, companyId and includeArchived get no elucidation anywhere.

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+resource ('List schema definitions') and enumerates the three scopes it covers (root, provider fragments, company-owned), which separates it from the singular sibling schema_get_schema_definition. The phrasing of the scope clauses is compressed and slightly cryptic, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many siblings (schema_get_schema_definition, schema_get_list_schema_versions, schema_resolve_schema, etc.). The agent must infer from the name alone when a list-scan is preferable to a direct get.

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