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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are truncated summaries, not full documents, and the scope is limited to the signed-in user's own ideas. It stops short of stating anything about ordering or empty-result behavior, which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return-shape caveat, then filters, then routing. The final routing sentence slightly duplicates intent already implied earlier, but every sentence still carries weight.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return value as truncated summaries and points to the tool that returns full text. It covers search, status, and paging adequately, but omits the project_id scoping option, leaving one of five parameters unaddressed outside the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates what the schema already documents — free-text search over title and body, the three status values, paging — without adding format, matching semantics, or combinability rules, and it never mentions the project_id filter at all.

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 signed-in user's content ideas") and immediately distinguishes itself from get-idea by declaring it returns only short summaries. An agent can separate it from the ~15 other list-* siblings because the resource is named explicitly.

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?

"Use this to find ideas before reading or editing one" gives the trigger, and "fetch the full text with get-idea" names the alternative and the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference about when this tool is the right entry point.

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