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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it lists 'all' widgets and specifies the source type, which is some context. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether it returns full widget data. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose. It is as concise as possible while remaining informative.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks guidance on how this tool differs from sibling list tools and contains a minor terminology mismatch ('report' vs 'project' in the enum). For a simple list tool with many siblings, this is not fully complete – it should at least hint at when to use it.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, just restates the source scope. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states the verb 'List', the resource 'widgets', and the scope 'for a source (report or template)'. It clearly indicates what the tool does, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_asset_widgets or list_template_widgets. The purpose is unambiguous but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools (e.g., list_asset_widgets, list_template_widgets). The description only states what it does, not when to choose it. An agent would have to infer from the name and schema, which is not sufficient for a tool with overlapping siblings.

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