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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Static reference, no network access' is corroborating but redundant. It does add value by enumerating the returned fields (reads targets, platforms), which matters given there is no output schema.

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 with no waste; the returned-field enumeration is front-loaded and the filtering/no-network notes follow compactly.

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 read-only reference lister with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned and how to filter, and annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters fully documented and enum-constrained, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Filter by platform or category' restates the params without adding syntax or format detail beyond them — baseline 3.

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) and resource (Voice Agent Linter rule) and enumerates the fields returned (id, title, severity, category, reads, platforms). This clearly distinguishes it from lint_voice_agent (which runs checks) and explain_lint_rule (which elaborates on one rule).

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 some usage context ('Filter by platform or category', 'Static reference, no network access') but never states when to reach for this versus explain_lint_rule or lint_voice_agent. The reference use is implied, not explicit.

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