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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of what comes back (id, name, on/off, trigger, step count, last run), which implies a read-only summary, but says nothing about permissions, result limits, or pagination for a list that could be long.

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 with no filler, and the field list is front-loaded. The closing phrase "shows one whole" is slightly clipped/awkward, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned, which is exactly what an agent needs to judge relevance. Gaps remain around ordering/limits, but for a single-optional-parameter list tool this is close to sufficient.

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%, so the single optional 'agent' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or scoping detail about the agent parameter beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (automations) and scopes it to the hosted agent. It also enumerates the returned fields and explicitly contrasts with automation_get, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

"automation_get shows one whole" implicitly routes the agent: use this tool for a survey, automation_get for a single full automation. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over other listing tools (api_list, design_list, brain_list) or of prerequisites.

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