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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond them: org-wide scope, filter semantics for userId, and the prerequisite skill step before first invocation.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then routes to related tools, then explains the filter, then the skill prerequisite. Three tight sentences with no 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?

For a single-param read tool with no output schema, it covers return fields, filtering, sibling-tool relationships, and a prerequisite. Adequate and complete for invocation; only the default sort/limit behavior is unstated, which is minor.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains what userId does ('list only the automations that user created'), which meaningfully compensates, though the param is optional and no format details are given.

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 verb+resource ('List every automation') and enumerates the returned fields (schedule, enabled flag, model level, output channels, creator, recent runs), which distinguishes it from sibling write tools like create_automation.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it: before create_automation to avoid duplicates, and to obtain the automationId needed by update_automation. It also names the userId filter behavior and a required skill read before first call.

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