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

Annotations cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: tier-gated access, the script_locked_by_tier error and that the script is kept not deleted, and that list mode never returns code. That is exactly the behavioral detail annotations don't 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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the two modes and the automatic-call caveat before paging and tier details. Efficient, though the pagination and error clauses push it toward the longer end for a three-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema, yet the description discloses what each mode returns (code+metadata vs metadata+size+locked status, never code) and how paging works via total_count/next_offset. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents limit, offset/next_offset, and tool_name's omit-to-list semantics, so the description largely restates them. It adds a mode-level framing (tool_name as the mode switch) but no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and cleanly splits two modes: 'fetch ONE stored script's code + metadata' vs 'list this company's stored scripts'. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like connections_script_save/delete without opening the schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('call it directly only to inspect or port code') plus context that script_run calls it automatically, and the mode switch (tool_name present/absent) is spelled out. Nothing is left to inference.

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