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

Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the description's job is extra context — and it delivers: result ordering, the fact that `prompt` is the full persona text (a size/verbosity expectation), and that playbookDashboardId is the ONLY dashboard a scout run may write via update_dashboard. It does not address whether the list is paginated or truncated.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and returned fields, then cross-tool routing, then an example — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense, packing three downstream use-cases (create_report/create_alert, update_scout, update_dashboard) into a single paragraph, which slightly blurs the core listing purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return shape — and it does so by enumerating each field, including that `prompt` is full text. For a single-optional-param read tool this is essentially complete; only pagination/result-size behavior is left unstated.

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% and the single `slug` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description never mentions `slug` at all; its parameter language refers to other tools' `scout` argument, which helps routing but adds no semantics about this tool's own input.

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?

"List this organization's scouts" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the returned fields (id, name, description, prompt, assignment counts) plus ordering by name. This clearly separates it from siblings like create_scout, update_scout, and list_skills.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the catalog for picking a scout persona before create_report / create_alert and tells the agent to pass the name as the `scout` param. It also covers the update_scout case (read the exact prompt for the IAM-checked old → new diff). No explicit "when not to use" or a rule for choosing between `name` and `id` beyond "name preferred".

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