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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot: a default ordering (newest first), a visibility rule that hides booked or in-progress assessments, and the consequence that an empty result set is not evidence of absence. Those are precisely the behavioral traits an agent could otherwise misread.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement (what is listed, ordering, returned fields), then the visibility caveat, then filters, then a definition. Sentences are dense and mostly earn their place. The closing definition of a Strategic Assessment is helpful for disambiguation but is the one part that could be trimmed if space were tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it explains the visibility filter that shapes results. Pagination mechanics are left entirely to the schema's limit/cursor descriptions, which is acceptable. It is essentially complete for a filtered list tool; only the semantics of the two id filters remain unstated.

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 50%: limit and cursor are documented in the schema, while client_id and diagnostic_report_id carry no descriptions there. The description names both filters but adds no semantics beyond the names — no indication of whether client_id scopes results to a single client, or whether diagnostic_report_id returns the assessments derived from one diagnostic. Naming the parameters is a marginal gain over the schema, so baseline 3 is right.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the published Strategic Assessments in the connected account') plus ordering ('newest first') and the fields returned (ids, Diagnostic, client_id, dates). It also defines the domain object itself, so an agent knows what an assessment is versus a Diagnostic. The only minor gap is that it never names get_strategic_assessment as the single-item counterpart, but the list-vs-get distinction is unambiguous from the wording.

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?

Gives clear context for use: only published assessments appear, and an empty page does not mean none was ordered, which is exactly the kind of caveat that prevents a wrong conclusion. It also names the two available filters. It stops short of explicit routing ('use get_strategic_assessment to fetch one by id', 'use list_diagnostics to see source diagnostics'), so it is clear-but-not-exhaustive rather than a full when/when-not guide.

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