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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: newest-first ordering, which fields are returned (install status, 7-day views), and the plan gating on the views metric.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then the returned fields and pagination. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the key returned attributes (install status, recent views) so an agent knows what to expect. Minor gaps remain around total counts or pagination termination, but the essential shape is conveyed.

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%, so both page and per_page are already documented including the 50-per-page default and 100 maximum. The description's '50 a page' matches the schema rather than extending it, so 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 names the resource precisely ('The user's widgets (social and review)') and the ordering ('newest first'), which is enough to distinguish this from get_widget or list_widget_types. It doesn't explicitly state the verb 'list' or name a sibling alternative, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

It surfaces one real usage constraint — that the 7-day view data is limited to paid plans — which affects when the returned data is meaningful. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_widget or how to page through large result sets beyond the '50 a page' note.

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