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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that only active conditions are listed and what output fields to expect (slug, name, value, active). No contradiction with annotations.

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 zero filler. Every word contributes: the system scope, the action, the resource, and the output fields. Excellent structure.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys behavior and return shape. Minor details like empty-list behavior or error handling are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the annotations' coverage.

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?

The single parameter actorId is fully described in the schema ('Actor ID'), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It references an 'actor' but does not elaborate on the ID format or any constraints. Baseline 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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'), resource ('active conditions on an actor'), system scope ('PF2e only'), and enumerates the returned fields (slug, name, value, active). Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools like pf2e-set-condition and from generic effect-list.

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?

Provides a system-restriction clue ('PF2e only') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to use instead.

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