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 valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a bounded/paginated list, scoped to the authenticated user's organization, and returns a deliberately limited field set. This helps the agent set expectations without contradicting the 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and scope, then details the return fields and exclusions. Every clause adds information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter list operation with an output schema and supporting annotations, the description is complete. It specifies scope, pagination, field projection, and explicitly states what is absent, which is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, with both 'limit' and 'cursor' already documented in the input schema. The tool description mentions 'bounded page' but does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 verb ('List'), resource ('gyms'), and a clear scope ('in the authenticated user's GymFlexa organization'). It also defines the return projection as 'gym id needed for follow-up reads plus name, currency, locale, and edit time', and explicitly excludes other data categories, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target detailed gym, payment, schedule, or service information.

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 establishes clear context: use this to list a bounded page of gyms and obtain IDs for follow-up reads. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the exclusion of organization, address, contact, billing, integration, and member data implies when not to use this tool. This is slightly short of a fully explicit 'use X instead' guideline.

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