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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that — results come back in the user's saved display order — but says nothing about pagination, result size, or auth scope.

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 front-loaded sentence stating action, resource, scope, and ordering. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 present, return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the definition is close to sufficient. It could still note that the list is unfiltered/complete or point to reorder_stream_decks for changing the order, but no critical gap remains.

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 (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The schema is fully covered and the description correctly implies no filtering arguments exist.

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 (list), resource (stream decks), and scope (the signed-in user's), which cleanly separates it from get_stream_deck, create_stream_deck, and reorder_stream_decks. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state the boundary, but the plural/read semantics are 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?

Usage is implied by 'the signed-in user's' (no user argument is needed/possible), but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus get_stream_deck or reorder_stream_decks. An agent can infer the read-list case, but nothing is spelled out.

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