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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include access/license notes and a detail link, which is useful behavioral context, but does not cover pagination or result limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and filter dimensions, then the return shape. Minimal waste, though slightly wordy in the second clause.

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 three-param, fully optional, fully documented read tool with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly, including what results contain. Minor gap in alternative routing.

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 description coverage is 100% with two enum-constrained parameters, so the schema already documents the filter fields. The description restates role/kind/keyword without adding matching syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Clear specific verb (list/find) plus resource (Architect's Toolbox Guide entries), and the three filter dimensions are named. It does not explicitly contrast itself against siblings like get_page or search_site, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage context (filtering the Toolbox Guide by role, kind or keyword), but it offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives such as search_site for broader lookups.

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