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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the ordering ('newest first') and the exact return fields, which goes beyond the schema. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful operational detail for the agent.

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 sentence front-loads the core purpose and output, and the second adds a practical usage hint. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 a straightforward list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema present, so return values are already structured. The description covers purpose, ordering, output fields, and a typical use case, making it fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The single parameter 'limit' is fully documented in the schema with its type, default, and max value. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add further parameter details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the entire parameter explanation and the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('the splits created with this connection'), and enumerates the exact output fields (collected amount, number of payers remaining, read-only URL). It also frames a concrete use case ('find a split again when the organiser has lost the link'), which effectively distinguishes it from the sibling create_split and get_split tools without ambiguity.

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 a clear scenario for use ('when the organiser has lost the link'), which signals the appropriate context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_split (e.g., 'for a single split use get_split') or state when not to use this tool. The implicit guidance is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives or exclusions.

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