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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds. It explains the distinction between stored status and derived effective_status, clarifies why status can appear active after revocation, and discloses that tokens are excluded and third-party delegations are not enumerable. Access requirements are also stated explicitly.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description front-loads the core purpose, then layers essential caveats about effective_status, token retrieval, third-party enumeration, and authentication without redundancy. It is dense but well-organized.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential return semantics (effective_status/is_valid beside stored status), authentication prerequisites, exclusions, and the correct alternative for token retrieval. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining that status filters only the stored status and does not filter effective_status, meaning status=active can still return delegations whose control proof died or lifetime expired. Page and limit need no further explanation.

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 precise verb and resource: 'List your own delegations with optional filters.' It explicitly limits scope to the caller's own delegations and distinguishes itself from get_delegation, which retrieves a single delegation with its token.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: 'Tokens are not included in the list — use get_delegation for the stored token.' It also states there is no public enumeration of third-party delegations and gives concrete authentication steps, including a warning that start_login does NOT open this tool.

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