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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the non-obvious filter that only published, public resources are returned, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness borders on under-specification given the surrounding toolset.

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, zero-required-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is close to adequate. It still omits how the language parameter changes results and whether the list is paginated or bounded, which an agent would want before calling.

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 0%, so the single 'language' parameter relies entirely on its enum (zh-CN, en) and default. The description never mentions that the listing can be localized or what the default does, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though the parameter is simple enough that the risk is low.

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 and resource ('List ... resources') and adds scope qualifiers ('published public') that meaningfully narrow the result set. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_resource, though the list/get split is reasonably self-evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_resource, list_cases, list_services, or list_faq. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration counterpart to get_resource purely from the verb.

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