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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by enumerating what each returned item contains (title, one-line purpose, number of checks, link), which is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the filter capability closing it out. The parenthetical example list is long but pays for itself by broadening semantic matching against real user queries.

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, and the description compensates by describing the shape of each returned item, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool before get_field_kit. Nothing critical is missing for a one-parameter, read-only list operation.

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 100% and the single optional `topic` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including examples ('shopify', 'webhook', 'AI'). The description's 'optionally filter by a topic word' repeats that without adding syntax or matching behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Lists) and resource (7IT Field Kits), then defines what a field kit actually is with concrete examples (webhook reliability, store speed audits, LLM production readiness). That goes well beyond the title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_field_kit or search_7it_guides, so it stops short of a 5.

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 hints at usage by saying 'Optionally filter by a topic word,' which tells the agent how to narrow results. However, it never says when to use this discovery tool versus search_7it_guides, or that get_field_kit is the follow-up for a single kit. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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