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

With no annotations, the text must carry the behavioral burden; 'List' signals a read-only operation and the X-Mako-Key requirement adds useful auth context. It does not mention pagination, response shape, or that results can be narrowed by the optional filters.

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?

A single clean sentence front-loads purpose and scope, then adds the auth requirement without any filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple optional-filter list tool, the description plus schema covers the core: what is listed, account scope, and required auth. But without an output schema or annotations, the agent still lacks return-shape and pagination context, and the description's 'everything' doesn't signal the available filters.

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 low at 33%, so the description should compensate. It adds real meaning to 'kind' by mapping it to 'competitor report bundles and May run artifacts', and 'account' loosely maps to client_account_id. The limit parameter, however, gets no semantic enrichment beyond its schema min/max.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('everything finished and ready to download'), and the account scope. By naming 'competitor report bundles and May run artifacts', it clearly separates this from siblings like get_download_url and list_clients.

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 implies the right scenario—enumerating finished deliverables on the account before downloading—and adds an important auth requirement. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_download_url or exclude other sibling tools.

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