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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: soft-deleted Nods are excluded from the result. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size, which are the remaining behavioral questions for a list operation.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline; one more clause naming the operation and the sibling distinction would cost little and add much.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, output schema present, safety covered by annotations), so the description is close to sufficient. However, for an account-wide list tool it omits whether results are paginated or complete, and omits any routing to get_nod for single-record lookup.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies.

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 resource (Nods) and a scope condition (not deleted), but it is a noun phrase with no verb and never distinguishes listing from the sibling get_nod. An agent can infer 'list' from the tool name, but the description itself does not state the operation explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative, get_nod, for retrieving a single Nod. The agent is left to infer that this is the bulk retrieval path versus the single-item path.

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