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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results span two row types, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering, so it is only marginally additive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key scoping detail (normal vs. generated interface rows) comes first. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the routing information an agent needs to pick this tool over requirements_list or interface_contracts_list, which for an 8-parameter listing tool is a real 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 description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters — including non-obvious ones like content_key/content_contains pairing and the kind enum values — are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the generic phrase 'with optional filters', which is baseline-level for a fully documented schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and a precise resource scope — normal requirements plus generated interface requirement rows for a project — which is clearer than a bare 'requirements' tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling requirements_list or interface_contracts_list, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative such as requirements_list, which appears to cover overlapping ground. Usage is only implied by the word 'List' plus the presence of filters in the schema.

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