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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result scope ('every studio in your account, the ones you own and the ones you were added to'), the meaning of recording type, and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with access to this app). It omits pagination/ordering behavior.

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?

Reasonably short but structurally loose: it opens with a fragment ('Riverside: Your studios with name, recording type and the studio link'), then scatters the ownership scope, chaining advice, recording-type explanation and auth note across separate sentences without clear front-loading.

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 zero params, no output schema and safe-read annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: result shape/fields, result scope (owned + shared), how to use the IDs downstream, and the auth prerequisite. Only pagination and ordering behavior are absent, which is minor for this simple list call.

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 zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does helpfully explain that consumers should reuse studio_id from each returned item in other calls, which is relevant to the (empty) parameter surface.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('list studios') and describes the returned fields (name, recording type, studio link). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling riverside_create_studio. The phrasing 'Your studios with name, recording type...' reads as a fragment rather than an explicit statement of what the call does, which keeps it from a 5.

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 useful chaining hint ('Use studio_id from each item in the other calls'), which is post-call guidance, but never states when to select this tool over alternatives. There is only one studio-listing tool, so usage is implied by the name, but no explicit when-to-use guidance is provided.

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