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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining that passing seedId returns full step lists and rowVersion, and that project context is required. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the alternative is given, and the requirement is stated. Every sentence adds value.

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 list tool with full schema coverage, readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage distinction, seedId behavior, and project context. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying that seedId returns 'full step lists and rowVersion', which goes beyond the schema's 'returns that seed with its steps'. This enriches the parameter's semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists seeds of the active project, defines what seeds are, and distinguishes the browse/find-id use from execution via run_seed. The verb 'list' plus the resource 'seeds' makes 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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('browse seeds or find a seed id') and when not to ('to execute one use run_seed'). Also notes the prerequisite 'Requires project context', leaving no ambiguity about the intended use case.

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