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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness; the description adds genuinely new behavior: all returned fields are retained and results are deduplicated by list/job/result position. It does not cover permissions or what a duplicate collision does to existing entries, so it stops short of 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?

Two short sentences, the action and source are front-loaded, and the dedup guarantee follows immediately. No filler.

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?

A five-required-parameter mutation tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema needs more: the roles of job_id, offset, and limit, plus whether the call returns a count or the copied records, are unaddressed. The dedup and field-retention notes are the right kind of content but don't fill the parameter 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?

Schema coverage is only 20% — request_id is documented, but list_id, job_id, offset, and limit have no descriptions. The description only obliquely gestures at them via 'a page' and 'list/job/result position', leaving the agent to guess what job_id identifies and how offset/limit bound the copy.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Copy a page of already-paid search results to a list' tells the agent exactly what is created and from what source. It is distinguishable from get_search_results and add_leads_to_list in substance, though it never names those siblings 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?

'already-paid search results' implies a prerequisite (a completed/paid search job) and 'a page' implies pagination, so usage is partially inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_search_results or add_leads_to_list, and no statement of what happens if the job isn't paid.

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