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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'does not change lists or what is stored' reinforces rather than duplicates blindly. More valuable is the disclosure of what the response contains (columns, actions, schema versions) and the meaning of the related/related_links fields, which no output schema provides. It stops short of describing ordering or size of the result set.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with the negative scope and sibling routing placed after. The two middle sentences ('related is the saved link order', 'related_links are the links each record of that list shows') are terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but no sentence is 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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the remaining burden is describing the return shape, and the description does that for the main fields. It leaves out result ordering, pagination, and the format of schema versions, which an agent might want before parsing the response.

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 no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and there is nothing in the schema that needs compensating for. The description spends no words restating parameters, which is correct here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists this account's CRM lists') and enumerates the payload ('columns, actions, and schema versions'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is not explicit about how it differs from crm_define_model or crm_delete_model, but the read-only listing framing is clear enough to separate it from the mutating siblings.

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 gives a negative scope ('It does not change lists or what is stored') and routes one adjacent need to get_account.business_facts, which is genuine guidance. However, it never states the positive when-to-use condition or names the create/define sibling it should be paired with, so the routing is only partial.

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