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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a compact catalogue rather than full schemas, and include_not_enabled expands results to modules not yet added. It does not describe return ordering or pagination, but for a simple read-only listing this is reasonable.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key usage detail and parameter behavior. Every sentence contributes to selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return shape or ordering, but the core behavior and optional expansion are clearly conveyed.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds some meaning by explaining that include_not_enabled reveals modules that enable_module can add, but it largely restates the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: it lists the main Raq.com modules enabled for the selected account. It also clarifies the scope by mentioning the compact module catalogue rather than individual tool schemas, which distinguishes it from schema-fetching siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this to refresh the compact module catalogue without loading every individual tool schema. It also explains the include_not_enabled option and its relationship to enable_module. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a specific alternative sibling.

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