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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't: it is read-only by design and it surfaces stable identifiers that shortcuts_run and shortcuts_view expect, tying this call into a workflow. It stops short of describing ordering or item shape, but an output schema exists to carry that.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned (id-bearing shortcut list) before the filtering options and the sibling disclaimer. No filler.

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 tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what is returned, how to filter, the special 'none' value, and the boundary against shortcuts_run.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the field docs: the identifier is described as the stable key consumed by shortcuts_run/shortcuts_view, and it spells out the 'none' sentinel and the folder-vs-folders interaction. Minor redundancy with the schema keeps it off a 5.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Lists the user's macOS Shortcuts') and states scope (each with its stable identifier) plus what the identifier feeds into. It explicitly distinguishes itself from shortcuts_run, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: pass `folder` to filter, use `folders: true` to list folder names, and the closing clause 'Only lists: it does not run anything (shortcuts_run does)' names the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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