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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's addition of sorting order is valuable context beyond those annotations. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but those are more parameter-related and partially covered by the schema.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. The sorting detail earns its place by adding key behavioral information.

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 and the annotations are rich, so the description covers purpose and sorting adequately. However, it lacks any mention of pagination or offset, and with no output schema, a hint about the return format would make it more complete for an agent.

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 description adds no parameter information; the schema documents limit ('Default 50, max 200') but offset is left completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. With 50% schema coverage and no description compensation, the offset parameter remains unclear.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'sujets from the IWAC index', clearly distinguishing it from sibling list_* tools like list_persons or list_audiovisual. The sorting detail ('most-referenced first') further clarifies what kind of list is returned.

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 use when a frequency-sorted list of subjects from the index is needed, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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