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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: sort order, that each row carries a short link and all-time scan count, and the pagination contract (cursor from previous `next`, default 50, max 200).

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, front-loaded with what is returned, then the available filters, then pagination mechanics. Every clause is load-bearing and no filler is present.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers return contents, ordering, filters and pagination well enough to invoke correctly. It stops short of noting result-shape details such as total counts, but that is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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?

With schema coverage at 43%, the description carries real weight: it explains cursor usage ("pass `cursor` from the previous `next`"), the default/max limit, the "root" folder sentinel, and label-search semantics. It still just names status/type without explaining their effect on results, so it adds meaning without being exhaustive.

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 and resource ("List QR codes") and enriches it with ordering ("newest first") and the fields returned ("short link and all-time scans"). It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling like qrs_get or analytics_get, but the name and scope are unambiguous.

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 filter list (search, folder, company, status, type) implies the use cases, but there is no explicit "use this when / use X instead" guidance. Nothing routes the agent between qrs_list, qrs_get, and scans_list, so context is only implicit.

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