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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: default sort order ('newest activity first') and the cursor-invalidation rule ('changed collections require restart'). It omits any mention of page-size behavior or the response envelope, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loading scope and ordering before the sibling pointer and the pagination caveat. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description needn't cover return shape, and it correctly covers ordering and cursor invalidation. But for a paginated list tool it leaves page-size semantics unaddressed and uses a cursor name that does not match the schema, so an agent still has gaps at call time.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains the cursor's continuity contract (pass it back; restart if the collection changed), but refers to it as 'nextCursor' while the schema property is 'cursor', a naming mismatch that could cause a wrong argument, and it never mentions 'limit' at all (default 50, max 100).

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 ('Page every owned bundle') plus a scope ('owned') and an ordering guarantee ('newest activity first'), and explicitly routes full-detail needs to bundle_get. An agent can distinguish it from bundle_get and bundle_get_file without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Full metadata and manifest: bundle_get'), giving a clear selection rule for the browse-vs-inspect decision. It stops short of stating when listing is inappropriate (e.g., when the bundle name/id is already known), so it is not a full when/when-not specification.

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