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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it explains that ideas never close on their own and only save_idea with archived:true closes one, and that it returns every tab's count. It also states 'Does not change anything,' which is a mild restatement of readOnlyHint but harmless.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the filter semantics, then the returned fields, then the mutating-related note. Slightly dense with the long field enumeration, but every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 a 2-param read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description covers interpretation of filter values, the returned fields, archive semantics, and related tools. It does not need to explain return structure since an output schema exists; coverage is strong though not exhaustive.

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 both parameters (filter, pillarId) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description repeats the filter values without adding syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-for-100%-coverage case.

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 (Lists) and resource (content ideas) and immediately defines what an idea is ('things worth making content about, before or alongside the posts made for them'), which meaningfully disambiguates it from sibling post-listing tools like search_posts.

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 filter enum is explained inline (active/no_posts/archived) and the description names related tools (save_idea, save_post). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over search_posts or get_post, so routing between listing options is left partly implicit.

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