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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavior beyond those: it returns one page, uses cursor pagination, and instructs the caller to loop until nextCursor is null. This exceeds the annotation baseline, though it does not detail error cases or edge behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the read-only nature and pagination model, followed by a concrete usage instruction. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.

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 three-parameter read-only list tool, the definition plus schema is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema makes the description's pagination-loop guidance valuable, though it could have been slightly more explicit about what a page contains or how it relates to sibling tree-related tools.

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%, so the baseline baseline is 3, and the schema already documents bbox, limit, and cursor well. The description adds value by explaining the cursor lifecycle ('Pass nextCursor as cursor until it is null'), which is not fully captured in the schema's standalone description.

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-resource pair ('list trees'), and clarifies it returns one page of trees with cursor pagination. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation, though 'same data as GET /api/forest?limit=' hints at its relationship to get_forest.

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 explicit operational guidance: use it for read-only paginated listing and pass nextCursor as cursor until null. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare against siblings, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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