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

Annotations already assert readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating results are sorted by frequency (most-referenced first), which is not in the annotations. It does not cover pagination behavior or return limits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the resource, source index, and sort order efficiently.

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 simple list tool with rich annotations, the description covers the resource and ordering, but it leaves the offset parameter undocumented and gives no usage routing among many sibling list/search tools. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the pagination gap keeps it from being fully complete.

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 only 50%: limit is documented as 'Default 50, max 200' while offset has no description. The description does not mention either parameter or explain pagination, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented offset.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sujets') scoped to the IWAC index, and specifies sort order by frequency. This distinguishes it from generic search or get tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling list_* tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The sorting note hints at the output but does not tell an agent when to choose list_subjects over list_persons, list_locations, or search_index.

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