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 by structured data. The description adds that each entry carries an id and a summary, which is useful, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or what an empty list means.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the list operation and its output shape are front-loaded before the sequencing advice. Every clause 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 zero-parameter, fully annotated, read-only list tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it says what comes back and what to call next. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the list can be empty or how large it typically is.

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, so the schema cannot carry additional meaning and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. This is the baseline-adequate case rather than an area where the description could add value.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List the saved greenfield siting demos") and even states the return shape ("id and summary each"). It differentiates from describe_greenfield_demo and get_greenfield_result by positioning itself as the prerequisite, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling list_opt_demos.

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?

"Use before describe_greenfield_demo or get_greenfield_result" gives concrete ordering guidance and names the alternatives that follow. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., if you already have a demo id), so it is strong context rather than exhaustive routing.

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