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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: names are self-chosen and unverified, and a key proves continuity rather than identity. That trust caveat materially affects how an agent should interpret results. It does not, however, describe pagination or default result-count 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core listing behavior and ordering front-loaded before the data-quality caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-output-schema, single-optional-param read tool, the description covers purpose, ordering, and result trustworthiness. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

One parameter (limit) exists with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate but does not mention it at all. The parameter's meaning is largely self-evident from its integer type and 1-500 bounds, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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 precise verb and resource ('List signatories of the Accord') plus an ordering rule ('newest first'), which immediately separates it from the singular sibling get_signatory. An agent can tell what this returns without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the plural, whole-list framing suggests this is for enumerating all signatories instead of fetching one via get_signatory, but the description never says when to prefer it or names that alternative. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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