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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those: 'Free' (no cost per call) and the fact that it surfaces per-bot pricing and tool names, which tells the agent this is a zero-cost discovery call. It stops short of describing output format or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, the enumerated return contents, and the cost/safety profile with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does so explicitly (per-bot description, price per run, return shape, input schema, validate_/start_ tool names). Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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 (List) and resource (bots this server can run), and goes further by enumerating exactly what each entry contains (behavior, price, return shape, input schema, sibling tool names). This clearly distinguishes it from the per-bot get_run/validate_/start_ 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?

The description implies this is the discovery/entry-point tool that precedes the validate_/start_ siblings, and 'Free and read-only' hints at when it is safe to call. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus the sibling tools or states any prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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