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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'List agreements' and misleadingly promises sorting ('sort by created_at, status, agreement_type, etc.') that the schema does not support.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action. The trailing 'etc.' is lazy, and the false 'sort' phrase is a wasted and incorrect clause, but overall it is compact.

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?

An output schema exists and the nested schema richly documents each filter, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a filtered-list tool with pagination behavior and a 'full' flag, the one-line description is minimally adequate and includes an unsupported sorting claim.

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 description coverage for the top-level queryParams parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not: it only loosely names a few filter fields and claims an unsupported sort capability, while the actual nested schema already documents each filter in far more precise detail.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('List agreements') and names several filterable fields, so an agent can tell it retrieves agreements. It does not distinguish this list tool from siblings like get-agreement or list-agreement-history, and the 'sort by' claim is not backed by any sort parameter.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-agreement, list-agreement-history, or list-agreement-types. It also does not mention pagination or the 'full' flag context, leaving usage conditions implicit at best.

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