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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: derived vs stored status semantics, why status can still read active after control-proof revocation/suspension/expiry, token exclusion, and a concrete auth prerequisite with the exact remediation step. Far beyond what annotations provide.

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 action and the critical effective_status warning, with the access requirement last. Slightly repetitive in explaining effective_status (the expired/earlier-lifetime point is made twice), but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Covers auth prerequisites, the derived-vs-stored distinction, and what the listing omits (tokens), which is the key completeness burden given no output schema. Pagination behavior and the exact item shape beyond effective_status/is_valid are left implicit, but the description is adequate for a filtered list tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and the status parameter's schema text already states it filters stored status and not effective_status, so the description largely restates rather than extends parameter meaning. The surrounding effective_status explanation adds interpretive context but no new parameter syntax or format.

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 ('List your own delegations') plus scope ('your own') and optional filters. It is readily distinguishable from get_delegation (single item, includes token) and from the unrelated list_* siblings.

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 routes the agent: use this for the list, use get_delegation for the stored token, and states there is no public enumeration of third-party delegations. It also tells the agent to read effective_status rather than status, with the reason why.

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