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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: credential scoping, the pinned-credential single-ledger case, and default pagination behavior when parameters are omitted.

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 compact sentences with no wasted text. The core scope and the key credential-pinning distinction are front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety traits, the description provides everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly: scope, pagination omission behavior, credential pinning, and downstream usage.

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 schema defines both parameters fully. The description still adds value by clarifying that omitting both `page` and `limit` returns every reachable ledger, which is a semantic detail beyond the schema's default notes.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the ledgers') and precisely bounds the scope by credential reach. It further distinguishes behavior for pinned versus unpinned credentials, so an agent can tell this apart from siblings like checkLedger or createLedger 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?

It clearly establishes when the tool returns all ledgers (page and limit omitted) and explains its role as the source for the `ledger: owner/name` parameter used by other ledger tools. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a different sibling, but the usage context is strong and unambiguous.

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