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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about what mappings are, but it does not disclose behaviors such as ordering, pagination, or whether all mappings are returned.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second clarifies the domain concept and provides concrete examples.

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 read-only list tool with two enum-constrained parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It could add return-shape or scope-semantics details, but the lack of an output schema is mitigated by the straightforward 'list' semantics.

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% for both parameters, so the schema carries the load. The description adds meaning to 'kind' by explaining IDENTITY_FIELD vs EVENT_TYPE mapping roles, but 'scope' is not elaborated beyond the schema's enum values.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('source-to-canonical mappings') and qualifies it by kind and scope. It clearly explains what mappings are, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like set_mapping or delete_mapping, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 context is clear: use this tool to retrieve mappings for a given kind and scope, and the explanation of kinds indicates when each variant applies. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple read-only list operation the intended usage is evident.

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