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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it returns a 'reference set,' but it does not disclose pagination behavior, possible empty results, or any relationship to other SMI objects. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and resource, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Given the simple list operation, complete annotations, fully described pagination parameters, and an output schema, the description provides enough core information for an agent to invoke the tool. It lacks only broader usage context, but nothing critical is missing for a basic reference-data listing.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters, which already clearly document page and take with defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific 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 states a clear verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('the SMI reference set of statuses'), going beyond the title to indicate this is a reference data lookup. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by naming 'statuses', though it does not explain what a status represents.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like smi_list_platforms, smi_list_products, or other smi_list_* tools. The intended context is only implied by the resource name; no exclusions or alternative selection hints are provided.

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