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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real value beyond them: ordering (newest first), that a total is returned for pagination, an API-key requirement, and that the call costs no credits. Auth and cost disclosure are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the filter, then the operational constraints. The aside "so you know how many more there are" is mildly padded but justifies the total-count mention.

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 no output schema, the description usefully covers return ordering and the presence of a total count, and it discloses auth and cost. Pagination mechanics via offset are left entirely to the schema, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 limit, offset, and the status enum are already fully documented, including the enum values. The description only restates the status filter's purpose, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (collections) and scope (newest first, paginated total), which distinguishes it from get_collection (singular) and create_collection. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the plural listing scope makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

"Filter by status to find the ones still running" gives one concrete usage cue for the status parameter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_collection or how it relates to other listing tools. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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