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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that results are filtered by 'the current SaaS role,' which is not encoded in any annotation. It does not describe the shape of the returned list, but that is minor for a zero-argument read.

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 sentence with the verb and the role-scoping constraint front-loaded, and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 no-argument, read-only, annotation-rich listing tool this is close to sufficient: what is listed and under what scope are both stated. The only omission is the return shape (names only vs. names with descriptions/metadata), which an agent might want since 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; the description neither adds nor omits parameter meaning.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus two concrete resources ('/questa:* commands and MCP tools') scoped by role. The four sibling tools (anonymize_document, redact_pii, review_with_claude_legal) are clearly unrelated, so an agent can place this tool without ambiguity, though the description does not explicitly distinguish itself from any of them.

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?

Usage is only implicit: an agent can infer it should call this to discover what the current role is permitted to run, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g. that a SaaS role must already be established). No alternatives exist among the siblings, so the absence is less damaging than it would otherwise be.

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