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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the shape of each returned entry (name, description, key, encode/decode capability, example, link), but says nothing about pagination, filter interaction, or how many results come back — behavior the agent must learn from the schema instead.

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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and the return contents trailing as a natural enumeration. No filler or redundancy, though the long field list makes it slightly dense for one sentence.

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 an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description need not explain return values in depth, and it doesn't. It still leaves filtering (query/category/language), pagination via cursor, and the discovery-then-encode workflow unaddressed, which for a 5-parameter listing tool leaves visible gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (query, cursor, category, language, pageSize) are already documented with defaults and enums. The description mentions none of them and adds no extra meaning, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb ("Lists") and resource ("the Morse and scout codes on SandiMorse") and enumerates what each entry contains, so an agent knows this is a catalog/discovery tool. It stops short of naming a sibling such as encode_scout_code to contrast against, but the read-only listing nature is 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to the sibling encode/decode/translate tools as follow-ups. The listing purpose only implies a discovery use case; the agent must infer that this is the right first step.

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