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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive nature, yet the description adds real behavioral context: permission-derived result sets, the meaning of an empty result, and pagination behavior (up to 25 per page with a next-page cursor). It stops short of disclosing ordering or whether the cursor expires, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is and what it returns, followed by scoping and pagination. Slight redundancy: listing the returned row fields partly duplicates the existing output schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter, read-only, paginated list tool with a full schema and an output schema, this covers the essentials: what is returned, what is excluded, who sees what, and how to paginate. Only ordering/tie-break behavior and cursor lifetime are left unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so both limit and cursor are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates the page size and cursor chaining. It adds a little framing (25 per page) but no format or edge-case detail beyond structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Lists the trade secret register entries") scoped to the connected Lightbringer organisation, and names exactly what is returned (reference, title, status, dates). Explicitly says "Entry content is not included," which separates it from any content-retrieval sibling like get_innovation or list_innovations.

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?

Explains the result-scoping rule (entries follow the user's register access, empty list = no openable entries), which is genuine usage context. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over list_innovations, list_strategies, or search, so routing guidance is only implied.

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