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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds little beyond that, except mentioning the 'library://' URI scheme in results, which gives some hint about return format. No contradictions with annotations.

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 description is extremely concise, using two short sentences with no redundant words. It is well-structured and to the point, fitting the simple list operation.

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?

While the basic purpose is clear, the description lacks details about output format, pagination, error handling, or the meaning of the parameters. Given there is no output schema, this leaves significant ambiguity for users.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters (page, type, scope, search, perPage). Without guidance, users cannot infer how these affect the listing. The schema enums and types are present but their meanings are 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 clearly indicates a listing operation for a library, enumerating item types (characters, styles, elements, locations). The phrase 'for agent reasoning' adds context about its intended use. It is specific enough to understand the tool's core function.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The note 'Picker assets use library://' hints at a use case but does not clarify when this list operation is preferred over other library-related tools or how the scope/type parameters should be used.

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