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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's remaining job is behavioral detail. It adds the concrete return shape (id, name, takenById, takenAt) and explains that snapshot JSON is excluded for size reasons, which is genuinely useful. It stops short of describing pagination/ordering behavior.

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, each earning its place: what it lists, what comes back, and where to go for the payload. The routing advice is front-loaded at the point of need with zero filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the explicit field listing is valuable, and annotations carry the safety profile. The one gap is cursor-based pagination semantics for a list endpoint, which an agent needs in order to page 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 coverage is only 33%: limit is documented in the schema ('Default 50, max 100') and the description implies projectId via 'for a project', but cursor is completely undocumented in both places. With pagination being a key parameter for a list tool, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (List) and resource (baseline snapshots) scoped to a project, and distinguishes itself from get_baseline by declaring that snapshot payloads are deliberately omitted. An agent can tell it apart from get_baseline, capture_baseline and compare_baseline without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (get_baseline) and the condition that selects it (when the snapshot payload is needed). This mirrors the high-calibration pattern of routing the agent to the correct sibling, leaving nothing to inference.

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