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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by defining what self_serve and assisted mean and by giving the 'ask before starting co-pilot' directive, but it does not disclose return format or side effects. That is acceptable given the read-only annotation, but the additional behavioral context is modest.

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?

The entire description is one sentence that lists both choices, defines them, and gives a usage hint. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff.

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, read-only listing tool with an output schema and safe annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, the meaning of the modes, and a directive on when to use it. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention how the optional 'preferred' parameter affects the output, but the schema already documents that.

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 clear description and example for 'preferred'. The main description adds value beyond that by explaining what each enum value (self_serve vs assisted) entails, which helps the agent understand the parameter's meaning more fully.

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 names the exact resource ('implementation modes') and the verb 'List', and it distinguishes the two modes with brief definitions. This makes it clearly different from sibling listing tools like list_fillable_fields or list_modules.

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 phrase 'Ask before starting co-pilot' provides clear context for when this tool should be used, implying it should present options to the owner prior to co-pilot. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though no direct sibling equivalent exists.

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