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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral facts: this is a read-style listing ("List"), it requires a token, and the result covers who has operator access plus delegation status. It omits secondary traits such as pagination or whether revoked delegations are included, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering scope, subject, and payload, followed by a compact auth requirement. No filler or repetition.

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, read-only list with no output schema, the description covers scope, direction, returned content, and the auth prerequisite. The only gap is pagination/result-boundary behavior, which is minor here.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter detail the description could usefully add.

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 (delegations) and pins the direction with 'outgoing ... you (the owner) have granted on your services', which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_delegated_to_me without needing the schema. It also previews the payload (who has operator access, status).

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 'outgoing / you (the owner)' framing gives clear context for when this tool applies and implicitly excludes the incoming-delegations case. It stops short of explicitly naming list_delegated_to_me as the alternative, so it is clear context rather than an explicit when/when-not rule.

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