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

Read-only behavior is declared via the readOnlyHint annotation, and the description adds a behavioral requirement ('Requires project context for scope project') and notes the output carries projectId and specId. No contradictions 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?

The description is concise, uses clear sentences, and logically separates the primary purpose, scope variation, use case, and alternative tool. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

The description provides enough context for an agent to know what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect in the output (projectId and specId for set_context). It also states the context requirement, making it self-sufficient despite lacking an output 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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, and the tool description adds context for scope ('Set scope to org...') and clarifies skip/take as pagination controls. This exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 API specifications in the active project, with an option to list across the organization. It specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'API specifications', and differentiates from get_spec.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use this tool for browsing or finding spec IDs, and directs to get_spec for single-spec retrieval. It also explains the scope parameter to switch between project and org listings.

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