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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by explicitly stating 'Never returns secrets.' This is a meaningful safety disclosure beyond the basic listing behavior, though it doesn't mention pagination or response ordering, which are minor for a zero-parameter list tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then compactly lists the returned fields and ends with an important safety note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it names the scope, the full set of returned fields, and the secrecy guarantee. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description has no parameter definitions to add, but it compensates by detailing the output fields, which is the relevant semantics for this tool.

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') and resource ('the caller's AgentsPodium instances'), then enumerates the exact fields returned. It clearly distinguishes this read-only listing tool from mutation and management siblings like create_instance, delete_instance, and instance_health.

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 purpose is so self-evident that an agent can infer it as the go-to tool for viewing instances. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scoping to 'caller's instances' and the list of fields gives clear context among the sibling tools.

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