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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the text. The description adds some value by noting the filter total count and paging behavior, but much of the return-shape detail duplicates the output schema. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 the listing behavior, followed by the routing sentence and then the parameter inventory. Every sentence carries information, though the parameter sentence is long and enumerates fields the schema already names, which slightly dilutes density.

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 9-parameter, filter-and-paginate list tool, the definition covers the required argument, the full filter set including enum values, paging, the total-count behavior, and the handoff to GetCheckResults, while the output schema covers return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the whole load and it largely does: it documents the required graph ID, the status filter with its exact enum values (PASSED, FAILED, PENDING), and the subgraph, branch, variant, author, check-ID, limit and offset filters. This meaningfully compensates for both the missing schema descriptions and the missing enum hints, adding syntax the schema lacks.

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 past schema checks for a graph') and then enumerates exactly what each item contains (ID, status, timestamps, subgraph, variant, commit, task statuses, total count), so an agent knows precisely what it gets back. It also names the sibling relationship to GetCheckResults, distinguishing itself from that tool without opening 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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to find a check, then pass its ID to GetCheckResults for failure details,' which routes the agent between the two tools. It does not, however, contrast itself with RunSchemaCheck or state when-not to use this list, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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