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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the description does not need to re-state safety. Instead it adds genuine behavioral context: results are ordered newest first, result fields can be empty ('empty when the page states none', 'often empty'), and a negative-capability note ('Client size is not available') that prevents an agent from hunting for a field that will never appear.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the returned fields, then the filters. The field enumeration is dense but directly supports selection decisions; nothing is padding.

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, filterable listing tool with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers scope, source, ordering, filter options, and data-availability caveats. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to predict the shape of what comes back.

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%, so all five parameters, including the lang enum and the limit bounds, are already fully documented. The description only recaps three filters (query, tag, has_results) and adds an example tag value, which is marginal value on top of the schema; it says nothing about the lang parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists published client references (case studies) from meom.fi') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), and it enumerates the returned fields. That is enough for an agent to distinguish this from siblings such as meom-public-list-proof-points or meom-public-list-services, which cover different resources.

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 states the filtering options and their triggers ('Optionally filter by a search term, a tag such as "WordPress" or "HubSpot", or only references with results'), giving clear usage context. It stops short of naming a sibling tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it does not reach the top band.

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