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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the scope ('configured for the authenticated application') and stating that it 'Returns all matching tools', which clarifies that this is a complete list rather than a partial result. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It leads with the core purpose, adds the optional filter, and closes with a meaningful return-behavior statement. Every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional, fully-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description is complete. It conveys scope, filtering, and that all matching tools are returned, so an agent has enough context to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, with the active parameter clearly documented as 'true = active only, false = inactive only, omit = all.' The description's mention of filtering by active status adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'tools configured for the authenticated application', and it notes the optional active-status filter. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling read_tool, but 'List' versus 'read' plus the plural 'tools' makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as read_tool or update_tool. It implies usage through the verb 'List', but does not state when listing is appropriate, what preconditions exist, or when a different tool should be used instead.

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