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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: results are paginated, secrets and platform-administration actions are excluded, and provider record text is untrusted data rather than instructions. The prompt-injection warning is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the following sentences are short and information-dense. The docs/API pointers and the trust warning each add value, though the run of clauses is a bit telegraphic at the end.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers scope limits and pagination. But with four undocumented parameters and no sibling routing, an agent still lacks enough to invoke this precisely instead of picking system_search.

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 0% across all four parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only obliquely gestures at limit/offset with 'Paginated' and says nothing about what 'module' or 'search' accept — filter keys, match semantics, or module naming conventions are entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Discover the full organization action inventory,' with enumerated content areas (configuration, integrations, roles, billing, handoffs). It's clear this is a discovery/listing tool, though it never names a sibling like system_search or system_describe to sharpen the boundary.

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 implied by the word 'Discover' and the paginated listing framing. There's no explicit when-to-use guidance versus system_search or system_describe, and no statement of preconditions, leaving the agent to infer that this is the browse-everything entry point.

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