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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description is not expected to restate those. It adds useful context by naming the 'Feature Index' and framing features as product capabilities, but it does not disclose behavior like sorting, pagination, or default filtering beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and resource, and the second lists representative user requests. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 complete schema coverage and informative annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and call it correctly. It does not describe output shape, but this is not required for such a straightforward listing operation.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description's 'all' vaguely aligns with the status default, but it does not add meaning about companyId or status behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific resource ('product features in the Feature Index') and a specific verb ('List all'), making the tool's job clear. It distinguishes itself from obvious sibling mutations like create_feature, update_feature, and retire_feature, though it does not explicitly compare to other list tools.

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 concrete trigger phrasings ('what features do I have?', 'show my features') and a business context ('product capabilities for marketing'), giving clear guidance on when to invoke it. It does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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