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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the payload shape (roster, weights, settings, is_active) and implicitly that this is a read-only enumeration, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or whether inactive formations are included.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists contents efficiently. The 'bench' framing costs a few words but reinforces the mental model without bloating the text.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers them at a high level. However, for a tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented required parameter, it leaves gaps around access requirements and result scoping.

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 0% and the single required parameter fund_id is never mentioned by name. The phrase 'The fund's bench' implies the results are scoped to a fund, but an agent gets no explicit confirmation that fund_id is the scoping key.

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 the resource (every saved formation) and enumerates what each entry contains: roster, weights, settings, and is_active. The verb is implied by 'every saved formation' rather than explicit, and the 'bench' metaphor adds flavor without distinguishing it from siblings like list_formation_templates or get_fund.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this lists formations belonging to a fund. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_formation_templates, switch_formation, or get_fund, and no stated prerequisites beyond the fund scoping in the label.

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