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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context that each entry carries the id and rowVersion needed for updates or linking. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, sorting, or limits, which are common for list operations. With annotations covering the read-only safety, this is an adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 three sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place: the scope explanation, the return content, and the usage routing to manage_shared_schema. There is no redundant or filler text, making it efficiently concise.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, scope options, what each entry contains, and when to use it versus the mutation alternative. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are minor for a list tool and not critical for correct invocation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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% and the parameter 'scope' already has a description and default value. The description repeats the scope meanings but adds nuance by specifying 'current project's library' for 'project' and 'organization-wide' for 'org', which is a slight addition. Since the schema already explains the parameter, the description adds marginal value, consistent with a baseline 3.

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 reusable schemas from the shared library and explicitly mentions the scope parameter. It differentiates itself from manage_shared_schema by naming the alternative for mutations. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other list_shared_* siblings (e.g., list_shared_responses, list_shared_reports), though the resource type (schemas) makes the distinction implicit. This is clear but not fully explicit on sibling differentiation.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this to browse or find an id; to create, change or delete one use manage_shared_schema.' It also clarifies the two scope options and their meanings ('project' for current project's library, 'org' for organization-wide). This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to use the alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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