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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the hosted surface accepts these read actions only, a useful constraint, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or what hiddenInternal counts mean behaviorally.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the read-only constraint. No wasted words.

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 registry tool with a rich schema and annotations, the description covers the essentials but lacks return format or pagination info. Since no output schema exists, some return behavior could be helpful, though not strictly required for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail, including filters and the includeInternal flag. The description adds no parameter detail, but the schema carries the full burden, making a baseline of 4 appropriate for a single well-documented parameter.

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 specific verbs (list, show) and the resource (object definitions), and clarifies the read-only nature of the hosted surface. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like registry_snapshot or catalog_list, but the object-definition scope is reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use list vs show beyond the action enum in the schema, nor when this tool is preferred over siblings such as catalog_list or registry_snapshot. The agent must infer usage from the action names alone.

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