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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool is read-only, and the description uses non-mutating language like 'List' and 'see'. It adds useful context about level scoping and project context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as return format or pagination.

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 concise, well-organized, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: what is listed, how levels work, what context is required, and when to use a different tool.

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 read-only list operation with no output schema, the description provides enough context: the resource being listed, the level distinction, required parameters, and the relevant alternative tool. It is complete without being verbose.

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%, and the description mostly reinforces the schema's existing parameter explanations. It adds the relationship between 'level' and the required IDs, but that relationship is already present in the schema descriptions, so the added semantic value is limited.

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 action ('List'), a clear resource ('headers excluded from the policy cascade'), and distinguishes the two coverage levels ('response' vs 'project'). It is clearly differentiated from related tools and from the mutating manage_header_exclusion tool.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use this to see what is excluded from the cascade') and directs users to manage_header_exclusion for adding or dropping exclusions. It also explains the required level-based parameters, leaving little room for misuse.

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