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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: snapshot JSON is deliberately omitted to keep responses small, and access is entitlement-gated per plan with a 30-day grace period before reads are refused after a plan change. The entitlement sentence is awkwardly phrased ('On every plan unless baselines are set to Professional'), which slightly muddies an otherwise valuable disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then the alternative, then entitlement rules; no filler sentences. The final entitlement clause is convoluted enough that it requires re-reading, which costs it a point.

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 three-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, why the payload is excluded, where to get it, and licensing constraints. The remaining gap is pagination behavior via the undocumented cursor, which the description leaves entirely to the schema.

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 only 33% — limit is documented (default 50, max 100) but cursor and projectId are not. The description adds no parameter meaning at all; it spends its words on return fields instead of compensating for the undocumented cursor/pagination semantics or the projectId scope requirement.

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 and resource (list baseline snapshots) scoped to a project, then enumerates the returned fields (id, name, takenById, takenAt). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_baseline, which returns the snapshot payload, so an agent can separate the two without reading either 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?

Gives a clear routing rule: use this tool for the lightweight list, use get_baseline when the snapshot payload is needed. It does not cover when-not-to-use conditions or how pagination interacts with very large lists, but the primary alternative is named with its selecting condition.

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