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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). The description adds a 'safe preview' and lists the returned fields, which is useful but not extensive. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides a bit of context on behavior, but the bar is lowered by the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes the key filtering and output details without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a list tool with pagination and an output schema, the description covers the essential points: bounded page, filters, and preview fields. Pagination mechanics (cursor) are in the schema, and output schema exists, so the description is sufficiently complete. It doesn't explain sorting or default order, but those are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 75%, with limit missing a description. The tool description mentions only projectId and language as filters, adding no new information about limit or cursor. The schema already documents most parameters, so the description adds minimal value beyond that.

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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (speeches), and the scope (bounded page). It distinguishes from the singular get_speech by explicitly mentioning pagination and filtering, making the purpose 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?

It provides clear context on when to use it (listing speeches) and mentions optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use an alternative like get_speech for individual retrieval. The context is clear, but no exclusion is given.

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