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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses that secrets/keys are never returned, that webhook URLs are redacted to kind only, and that returned text is recorded data that must be treated as data rather than instructions. The only redundancy is the restated 'Read-only', which is already fully covered by annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the returned configuration facets, then a clearly labeled usage paragraph. The field enumeration is long but each item corresponds to a decision the agent may need to make; only the redundant 'Read-only' sentence could be dropped.

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, read-only listing with an output schema already present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, what is deliberately excluded for security, when to call it, and where to go instead. Return-value structure is correctly left to the output schema.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and nothing here contradicts that. The description instead characterizes the shape of the response fields an agent will see, which is useful orientation even though the schema needs no parameter explanation.

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 the PromptGuard projects') and enumerates exactly what configuration facets are returned (strictness, fail mode, enforcement mode, zero retention, agent policy enforcement, alert routing). It also distinguishes itself from the events sibling by pointing to promptguard_list_events for per-project events.

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?

Provides an explicit 'When to use' block covering both inspection ('check how a project is set up') and a concrete decision case ('which projects fail open'), plus a named alternative with the exact argument to use ('call promptguard_list_events with project_name instead'). Nothing is left to inference about routing.

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