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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the page size (100 per page) and the fact that supplying 'type' switches from a counts summary to a paginated object listing. It does not describe the return payload, but an output schema exists.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two modes in order. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 a full output schema and rich annotations, the description only needs to cover scope, modes, and pagination, and it does. It is essentially complete for calling the tool correctly, though it could note tenant scoping relative to list_tenants more explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: 'type' is not just a filter but a mode switch that changes the entire result shape, and 'page' operates in fixed 100-item pages. That is meaning beyond what the schema's per-field text conveys.

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 (lists) and resource (public objects of one tenant), and crisply distinguishes its two result modes based on whether 'type' is supplied. It does not name or contrast the sibling tools (get_object, search), so it falls just short of maximal sibling differentiation.

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 two-mode behavior ('without type' vs 'with type') implicitly guides the agent on which parameters to supply, which is useful conditional guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over search or get_object, nor any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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