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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals sorting behavior (newest first), the specific fields returned, the fact that the code itself is never included, and the 'Free' aspect. It does not mention authentication details beyond 'Owner only', nor does it describe pagination or error behavior, but the provided details are meaningful and beyond what a schema would indicate.

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 highly concise, using a terse but information-dense style. It front-loads the key facts: owner restriction, the resource, sorting, and the returned fields. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema present. The description covers the core behavioral aspects: listing, sorting, field set, and exclusion of the code. It does not mention pagination or any rate limits, but for a listing tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. The lack of api_key explanation is a minor gap.

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?

There is one parameter, api_key, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention api_key at all, leaving its purpose unexplained. While it is optional with a default null, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This is a significant gap for the only parameter.

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 the tool lists all access codes for the owner, sorted newest first, and enumerates the exact fields returned (code_id, code_prefix, email, note, etc.). It also explicitly says it never returns the actual code, distinguishing it from operations like create_access_code or revoke_access_code. This is a specific verb + resource with clear scope.

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 includes a usage restriction ('Owner only') which is a clear condition for when to use the tool. It also states 'every access code' implying a comprehensive listing, which contrasts with list_access_requests. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it misses some explicit routing guidance.

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