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

The annotations provide strong behavioral clues (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The description itself adds little unique behavioral context, other than restating the function. Since annotations do a good job of covering safety, the description is minimally helpful beyond that.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence. It is efficient and front-loads the core functionality without any superfluous phrasing.

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?

While concise, the description is incomplete. For a tool involving pagination (limit/offset), a listing tool needs to explain *why* those parameters are available or what the return is based on. It relies too heavily on the user making assumptions about standard API design.

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 0%, requiring the description to explain the three parameters. It only mentions the context of the listing ('a site's assigned resources') but fails to add any semantic value regarding the existence or purpose of the 'limit' or 'offset' pagination parameters.

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 clearly states the tool lists resources for a site. However, given the large number of similar listing tools (e.g., list_location_sops, list_resources), the description fails to specify what 'resources' means in this context or how this differs from a general resource listing sibling, resulting in a moderate score.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus its numerous alternatives. Because there are many 'list' tools, the agent has no context to determine if this is the correct function for its task.

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