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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: result scope, case-insensitive substring query semantics, newest-created-first ordering, pagination defaults/cap, and the exact item fields returned. No behavior is hidden.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core scope, and every clause adds useful information. However, it is one long paragraph in which exclusions, routing, and output details are packed together; a bit more visual separation would make it easier to scan.

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 present, the description enumerates all item fields, states pagination defaults and cap, defines query matching, specifies ordering, and tells the agent how to obtain the missing description field from another tool. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the results correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The schema already documents page/limit defaults and query substring semantics; the description mostly restates these. It adds ordering and output-field context but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 first clause 'List tribes: every public tribe plus the private tribes you own or belong to' states a specific verb, resource, and exact scope. It also explicitly disambiguates from get_tribe and notes there is no separate 'my tribes' tool, which lets an agent know this is the list entry point.

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?

The description says when to use this tool (to list/find tribes and resolve name to uuid) and directs the agent elsewhere for what it does not provide: tribe descriptions via tribeunal_get_tribe, and UUID routing to get_tribe, list_tribe_members, or invite_jurors. It also explicitly rules out a nonexistent 'my tribes' alternative.

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