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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields (id, hero_name, role_name, description) and explicitly stating what is omitted (full Role prompts), setting return-size expectations.

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, front-loaded with the action and the pagination mode, then the return contents and the exclusion. No filler, though the middle sentence is a plain field list that could be trimmed.

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 read-only, idempotent list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape and the key exclusion. The main gap is pagination behavior, but the schema supplies defaults and bounds, so the definition is usable as-is.

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% for the two pagination parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining them. It only says 'using pagination' and adds nothing about page defaults (1), the page_size maximum (100), or default (20). The agent gets no semantic help beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource (List Heropedia Hero/Role entries) plus the pagination mechanism. It also implicitly separates itself from getDetail by noting it does not return full Role prompts, though it never names its siblings getListByHero or getListByRole.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List ... using pagination' and the negative scoping hint ('Does not return full Role prompts'), which nudges the agent toward getDetail for full prompts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how getListByHero/getListByRole differ.

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