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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying sort order ('newest first') and included fields ('scan counts and the printed short link'), but it does not mention pagination or other response traits. This is comparable to the baseline where annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and ordering are front-loaded, and the optional search behavior is stated concisely in the second sentence.

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 read-only list with an output schema, the description covers the resource, ordering, and key return fields. It omits the limit parameter's meaning, but the schema's constraints partially cover it and the output schema handles return details. Overall adequate with a small gap.

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?

The schema already documents q as 'Search labels', and the description only repeats that without adding new meaning. The limit parameter has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description, so its semantics are left to inference from default/min/max. With 50% schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('the account's QR codes'), and adds ordering and return fields ('newest first, with scan counts and the printed short link'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_qr_code or list_code_kinds.

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 gives clear context for the list operation and mentions optional label search, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_qr_code or list_code_kinds, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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