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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that filtering is optional rather than required; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or volume of results.

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 action and immediately qualifies it with the optional filters. No redundant restatement of the title and no filler.

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?

Both parameters are accounted for in the description and an output schema exists to cover return values, so the definition is nearly self-sufficient for a simple two-parameter read tool. Only the absence of any routing hint against covenant_status leaves a small gap.

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 0% and the state field is an untyped string in the schema, so the description's enumeration of ACTIVE|REVOKED|EXPIRED supplies information the schema entirely lacks. 'The bound agent' also clarifies what agent_id refers to, though it does not specify the identifier format.

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?

States the specific verb 'List' and resource 'covenants', which cleanly separates it from grant_covenant and revoke_covenant. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from covenant_status, which is the closest sibling and could plausibly also report covenant state.

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 word 'optionally' implies both filters can be omitted to retrieve everything, which is useful usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over covenant_status, nor any mention of prerequisites or result limits.

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