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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It states it returns moments but does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions needed, or the nature of the operation (read-only vs. mutating). Since it's a list operation, it's likely read-only, but the description does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention any constraints like pagination or default behavior. This is a gap, so a 2 is appropriate.

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 one short sentence, which is concise and to the point. It is efficient and front-loads the purpose. It does not waste words, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Given the tool is simple (no output schema, no nested objects, only 4 optional params), the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose and that filters exist. However, it lacks any mention of return format or behavioral details, but since the tool is straightforward and the schema covers parameters, it might be considered minimally viable. A 3 is reasonable: adequate but could benefit from mentioning typical usage context or what 'moments' are.

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 100%, meaning every parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it just says 'with optional filters' without elaborating. Per the rubric, when coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description does not enhance parameter understanding, so a 3 is correct.

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 tool searches and returns user's moments, with optional filters. It identifies the resource (moments) and the action (search/return), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'create_moment', but the name 'list_moments' vs 'create_moment' makes the distinction obvious. A 4 is appropriate because it's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 it searches and returns moments with optional filters, implying it should be used when reading/listing moments. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus create_moment, but the name and description make it obvious it's for listing, not creating. I would not say it provides explicit when/when-not guidance, but the intent is clear. A 3 is suitable.

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