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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaning beyond those annotations by defining what 'protected terms' are)Skip? and by noting the per-language translation behavior.

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, starts with the core action and resource, and packs the important distinguishing details (what the terms are, id output, relationship to delete_term, cost) without wasted words.

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 zero parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema present, this description covers everything an agent needs to decide whether to call the tool. It explains the returned content and even notes why the id matters, making it fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

This tool takes zero parametersabbvie, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to explain about parameter syntax. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and names the resource ('the account's protected terms'), then elaborates what those terms are and which ids are returned. It also explicitly connects the output to delete_term, which helps an agent distinguish this listing tool from its sibling mutation 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 clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation and says 'Returns each term's id, which delete_term needs', giving a concrete reason to invoke it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or spell out when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the context is sufficient.

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