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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the operation is safe and non-mutating. The description adds the default behavior of appId (caller's App by default) which is valuable beyond annotations. It does not describe pagination or response format, but with annotations covering safety, the bar is lower and the provided detail is adequate.

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 a single sentence that is concise, direct, and front-loads the purpose ('List BotInstances') followed by the optional filtering. No filler words, making it efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional filters and no output schema, which lowers complexity. The description covers the purpose and the default for appId, which is essential. However, it lacks information about pagination, sorting, or any limits, which might be relevant for a listing tool. Given the simplicity and annotations, this seems adequate but not overly detailed.

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 schema defines two parameters (appId and agentId) with no descriptions, but their names are self-explanatory. The description mentions filtering by these fields, adding some semantic meaning beyond their names, but does not provide type, format, or behavior details. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but is not thorough – summing up to a baseline 3.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('BotInstances') and the action ('List'), with a brief scope. It mentions filters (appId and agentId), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'ethora-agents-list-v2' that may list different resources (agents vs bot instances).

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 the tool is for listing bot instances with optional filters, and the context that appId defaults to caller's App is provided. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ethora-agents-list-v2' or 'ethora-bot-get-v2', but the naming and context make it relatively clear.

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