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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not the only source of behavior. It adds genuine semantic context by explaining what a Handshake represents and what its status fields indicate, but says nothing about scope, ordering, or volume of results.

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?

Two sentences with zero padding, and the purpose is front-loaded before the definition. The definition sentence earns its place by disambiguating a non-obvious domain term the agent will encounter in the output.

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 need not be explained, and with zero inputs there is little call complexity to cover. The domain-term definition makes the output interpretable. Minor gap: nothing states that results cover all of the user's handshakes or how they are ordered.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly implies no filtering input is needed, though not explicitly noting the absence of pagination or filter options.

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 clear verb (list/see) and resource (Handshakes) and even defines the domain term: an agreed trade showing confirmation and completion status on each side. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_handshake, which an agent must choose between when a handshake ID is known.

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?

"Use this to see the user's Handshakes" restates the purpose rather than giving guidance. There is no when-to-use vs get_handshake, no note that it requires a connected/authenticated user, and no exclusions or alternatives named.

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