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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description adds useful behavioral context: it states the output includes code and usage frequency and that project context is required. It does not describe pagination or ordering, but the schema covers skip/take. This is adequate but not richly detailed beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is direct. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with three optional, well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what is returned, when to use it, and the alternative for mutations. The absence of output schema is fine since the description states the content. Slight lack of mention of pagination defaults is covered by the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, though it implies searchTerm could be used for finding an id. No extra value is provided.

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 verb ('List'), a precise resource ('the project's reusable pre-request and post-response script snippets'), and details what is returned (code and usage count). It also explicitly differentiates from the mutation tool manage_script_snippet, making the purpose 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to browse snippets or find an id' and clearly directs to manage_script_snippet for create/change/delete. It also notes the prerequisite 'Requires project context', which is actionable for the agent.

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