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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: the output shape (id, title, one-line summary), the ordering (vibe coder's own order), and default vs archived listing behavior. It doesn't mention pagination semantics despite limit/offset params, which is a minor gap.

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?

Four tight sentences: purpose, domain definition, filtering behavior, and a routing pointer. Front-loaded with the output shape and scope, no filler.

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?

Complete for a read-only list tool: purpose, output fields, ordering, archived switch, and escalation path to get are all present. Only pagination behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable given readOnly annotations and full schema coverage.

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 100%, so all four parameters including limit/offset are documented in the schema. The description reinforces the archived parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Info pages) and even defines what 'Info' contains, distinguishing it from rules/features. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like list_rulesets or get without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly covers the archived variant ('pass archived=true for archived ones') and routes to the alternative tool for page text ('Call get with kind info'). Both the state selector and the read-depth alternative are stated.

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