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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that optional filters return live facets while the static dynasty list remains complete.

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 three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return format. Every sentence adds useful information without redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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 simple, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description provides the key return shape and explains facet behavior with optional filters. Combined with the fully documented schema and annotations, an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 would be 3 without additional context. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that optional filters activate live facets but do not truncate the static dynasty 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?

The description specifies the exact verb and resource: list all public dynasties, returning name/slug pairs. It also clarifies the downstream use of dynasty names as category values, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling list/get tools.

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?

It clearly states the primary usage context: use the returned dynasty name as category when browsing works or authors. It also explains what optional browse filters do, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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