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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it discloses that results include summaries, required scopes, dispatcher identifiers, permission hints, and full schemas, and that owner-only operations are excluded.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the list behavior and then the operation_id detail. Every sentence adds information without repetition or filler.

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 one-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains both listing and detail modes and summarizes returned content. Minor gaps such as pagination behavior or the exact origin/format of operation_id keep it from being fully exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of operation_id. It does so by explaining that an operation_id selects that operation's full input schema and permission hints, and that omitting it produces a list rather than a specific operation's details.

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 a specific verb and resource: it lists token-callable operations and, with operation_id, loads that operation's full schema. It distinguishes the two modes well, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling call tools such as callReadOperation or callWriteOperation.

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?

Usage is implied: omit operation_id to list operations, include operation_id to load full schema details. The mention of fields omitted from shortcuts hints at when to prefer the detailed lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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