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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scope behavior by restricting results to 'visible' buckets and clarifies it returns 'archive/delete guidance' rather than performing archive/delete actions — a useful distinction given destructive siblings like bucket_archive and bucket_delete_permanently.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and payload, followed by usage guidance and filter instruction. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With only one optional parameter, a rich output schema, and read-only annotations that establish safety, the description covers what the list contains, when to call it, and how to filter. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing; sibling differentiation is strong enough from context.

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%; the query parameter is already documented as an optional case-insensitive contains-filter on bucket title. The description only restates this ('Pass query to filter by title'), adding no new semantic detail beyond reinforcement, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'List visible Revdoku buckets' — a specific verb plus resource — and enumerates the distinguishing payload: website state, GitHub sync status/setup links, and archive/delete guidance. This positions it apart from sibling tools like bucket_get, bucket_file_list, and bucket_archive without needing schema inspection.

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 sentence 'Use this before follow-up bucket actions' gives explicit timing/context: it is a pre-flight listing for subsequent bucket mutations. It also explains how to filter ('Pass query to filter by title'), though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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