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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns metadata only (no jsonContent), each item includes readUrl, and authentication is required. It also explains the intended downstream use of readUrl, giving the agent important context for interpreting results.

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 three sentences with zero redundancy: purpose + filtering, return shape, and a directive on using readUrl. The most important scoping constraint (metadata only, no jsonContent) is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without repeating schema or annotation information.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It covers the core purpose, filtering capability, a key behavioral caveat (no jsonContent), the readUrl field, and authentication. Since all parameters are optional and fully described in the schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description mentions 'optional filtering' generically but does not add detail about specific parameters like limit, offset, search, or group_id. Per calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('data slots') with optional filtering, which clearly defines the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_data_slot (single retrieval) and set_data_slot (write) by explicitly focusing on listing and noting it returns metadata only, not jsonContent. The resource and scope are unmistakable.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool — for listing data slots with filtering — and provides a practical instruction on using the returned readUrl in display HTML fetch() calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., use get_data_slot for a single slot), but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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