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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: ordering by lastSeenAt by default, optional filtering by identity or free-text term, and the 'at most 100 devices' limit. These go beyond the annotations and clarify what the call returns.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('List tracked devices'), then packs in ordering, filters, and limit without wasted words. It is concise and informational with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior: listing, default sort, filters, and the cap at 100. While it doesn't detail pagination mechanics (offset) or return fields, those are partially addressed in the schema and are not critical for a listing tool. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 is 100%—every parameter has a description, so the schema already documents each field. The description synthesizes the overall behavior (e.g., 'ordered by most recently seen' and 'optionally filtered') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 states 'List tracked devices for the current customer' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_device (which likely retrieves a single device) and other list_* tools by explicitly scoping to devices. It also adds default ordering and filter options, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explains what the tool does and some behaviors (default sort, filters, max limit) but does not explicitly advise when to use it versus alternative tools such as get_device or list_identities. There is no 'when not to use' or mention of alternatives, so an agent must infer from the general list nature that this is for multiple devices.

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