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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('JSON string with schemas listing result') and explains the pagination-related parameters. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'List' implies a safe query. Missing explicit notes on concurrency or edge cases, but acceptable for a listing tool.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line summary, an Args list, and a Returns note. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence provides useful information, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and that an output schema exists (so return values need not be detailed), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, all parameters, and expected output. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a list operation these are not critical; the description is complete enough.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in the Args section, including project_key ('Project key (tenant ID)'), keyword, pagination settings, and sort options. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare input schema.

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 starts with 'List schemas from Selise Blocks GraphQL API', which uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('schemas') and clearly identifies the source. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_schema, get_schema, and update_schema_fields.

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 description implies usage (listing schemas) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using get_schema for a single schema. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions, so guidance is only implied.

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