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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: sessions include full history, document chunks and tool calls are returned as references (IDs + titles) rather than full content, and results are paginated and ordered by start time descending. No contradiction 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 concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The second sentence is dense but valuable; a minor formatting typo ('content.Returns') slightly detracts from polish.

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 8 parameters, high schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description covers the important behavioral gaps: reference-only content, pagination, and ordering. It could mention default time_filter or page/limit behavior, but these are already in the schema.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including time_filter formats and enum values. The description restates filters in prose but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 sessions for application.' It then enumerates the available filters (interactions, embed types, answer types, tool IDs, full-text search), making the tool's scope immediately clear and distinguishing it from siblings such as read_session_detail.

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 clearly conveys when to use this listing tool and what filtering capabilities it offers, but it does not explicitly contrast it with read_session_detail or other analytics siblings, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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