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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'use the returned id / do not guess' guardrail, useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior tied to offset or result ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by actionable instructions. Tight and mostly waste-free, though the id/do-not-guess guidance could be consolidated.

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?

The output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and complexity is low (one optional param). However, for a tool whose whole point is fetching ids, the description omits any handling of the offset/pagination parameter, leaving a small but real gap.

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 'offset' parameter is never mentioned in the description. Even though the schema supplies type, default and min/max, the description offers no compensation for the coverage gap or explanation of what offset does for this list.

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 a specific verb+resource ('List ... support desks') and scopes it to 'this team's', which distinguishes it from the workspace-wide sibling create_support_desk. It does not explicitly name a sibling like get_desk_context, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete workflow guidance: use the returned id, and do not guess a desk. This steers the agent to call this tool first before operations that need a desk identifier. It stops short of naming alternative tools or the full when-not condition.

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