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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds two behavioral details: the required API scope and the fallback to English for untranslated fields. These go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand permissions and output 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the scope requirement and fallback behavior are stated efficiently. Every word 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 read-only list tool with a well-documented schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, prerequisite, and a key output behavior. Pagination and error handling are already specified in the schema. The only minor gap is not explaining what 'coverage gaps' means in detail, but the title and context make it understandable.

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%, so all six parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's note about English fallback is already present in the lang parameter description, so it adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 'Coverage gaps, by camp' which clearly identifies the resource and scope. The tool name 'blindspots_list' reinforces a list operation. It is distinct from siblings like stories_list or search_list because it specifically targets coverage gaps per camp, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides a prerequisite ('Requires the stories API scope') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like stories_list or search_list. The context is implied by the title, but there are no exclusions or alternative routing.

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