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

The annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds value by warning that the use cases are illustrative and must not be presented as actual customer outcomes or performance claims, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The core action and the critical qualifier are front-loaded and every word 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 simple listing tool with an output schema, optional locale parameter, and safety annotations, the description covers the main behavioral caveat. The only real gap is explicit usage guidance, which is minor given how self-explanatory the tool is.

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?

The single optional locale parameter has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The enum and default provide some semantic information, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description should have compensated and did not.

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 clearly identifies the action (list), the resource (illustrative use cases), and the key caveat: they are illustrative, not customer results or performance claims. This distinguishes it from performance-claim or ROI-related sibling tools even without naming one directly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The intended context is implied by the name and phrasing, but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are given.

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