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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no key is needed for listing, the exact fields returned, and what happens when a keyed action is quoted without a key. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing that is a minor omission.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the purpose and output contents; the second adds a practical usage note about agent keys. Every clause earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it names the resource, enumerates the returned fields, and clarifies the auth/key situation. No additional information is needed to call 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially comprehensive and the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the returned entries contain, which is more useful than parameter documentation would be 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('actions this platform has registered for visiting agents'), then enumerates what is returned: name, description, parameters, and key requirement. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like quote or ask, which perform different operations.

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 provides clear context that no key is needed in advance, and explains the consequence of quoting a keyed action without one. This implies list_actions is the discovery step before quoting, though it does not explicitly contrast with about, ask, or confirm or state 'use this when you need to see available actions.'

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