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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds value by previewing the payload (content, design, payload, scan count), but says nothing about result size, ordering, or whether the list is paginated or truncated — a real concern for an unfiltered "every" listing.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the return summary tacked on efficiently. Nothing is padded and nothing is buried.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description carries the remaining burden and does so by naming what comes back. The only meaningful omission is volume behavior — no hint about pagination, limits, or ordering for a potentially long account-wide list.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of returned fields is a bonus rather than a substitute for schema detail.

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 and resource ("List every QR code on the account") and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from get_qr_code, which clearly fetches one. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, but the scope word "every" does most of that work.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching the whole collection versus get_qr_code for a single code. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no note about whether listing is the right first step before an update or delete, and no guidance on cardinality.

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