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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing scope ("verified") and the shape of each row (stable ID plus one-line summary), which tells an agent what it can and cannot learn from a list call. It stops short of pagination or ordering behavior.

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?

One sentence, scope front-loaded, no filler. The category enumeration and the return-shape clause both carry information an agent needs, so every element earns its place.

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 one-optional-param read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, population, categories and row contents. The only gaps are whether omitting the filter returns everything and whether results are complete or paged, both minor at this complexity.

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% with a single enum parameter that already carries a description, so the schema does the work. The description's category list mirrors the enum values rather than adding meaning, and it does not state the default when category is omitted (all categories). 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?

"List all verified procedures" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the four covered categories plus the population (foreign residents in Tokyo). It does not name a sibling, but "stable IDs and one-line summaries" implicitly signals this is the discovery tier versus get_procedure's detail tier.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point used to browse procedures before calling get_procedure with an ID. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion (e.g., "use search_glossary for terminology"), and no guidance on what an unfiltered call returns.

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