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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation and notes that records are public, but it does not explain pagination behavior, default limits, response shape, or whether filtering is supported beyond the parameter names.

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, with no filler. However, it is so terse that it omits useful operational guidance, so it is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 the 0% schema coverage, three parameters, no output schema, and the existence of a similar sibling 'discover', the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter semantics, or how this listing tool compares to discovery-oriented siblings.

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 tool description does not explain 'tag', 'type', or 'limit'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory—especially 'limit'—but the description adds no value about valid values, how filters combine, or what the parameters mean in the context of Humanity Commons records.

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 a specific action ('List') and a resource ('public Humanity Commons records'), so an agent knows the tool returns a collection rather than a single record. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'discover', but it is clearly distinct from 'get_record'.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discover' or 'get_record'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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