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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral nugget: a null slug means omit sort for the site default, which tells the agent how to interpret and act on a returned value.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the resource described first and the edge case (null slug) directly after. Every clause carries information.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers what is returned and how to handle the degenerate value. The only small gap is the exact response shape (label/slug field names), which is left implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description can mislead about inputs, and the note about null slugs applies to output values rather than parameters.

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?

Clear verb+resource: "List public work sort labels and slugs" tells the agent exactly what the tool returns. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or state how it differs from list_works/list_types, but the resource (sort options) is distinctive enough on its own.

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 second sentence implies usage (the resulting slug is fed elsewhere, and null means omit sort), but the description never states when to call this versus alternatives or what operation consumes the slugs. Usage must be inferred from the domain.

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