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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: pagination mechanics (100/page, offset to continue), scale expectations (~20,000 vs ~34,000), and the keyless/no-auth note. The disclosure of return fields and pagination fields is generous and goes well past what the annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then routing, pagination, and scale in order of importance. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only mild excess is the full field enumeration, which could be deferred, but it remains useful.

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 keyless, read-only, paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, pagination, scale, keyless access, and return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly and interpret the output is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, and entry_type thoroughly. The description still adds value by giving concrete entry-type examples with counts ('Medicine Registered' ≈ 20,000; 'Medicine' ≈ 34,000 incl. listed) and confirming page-size behavior, which helps an agent choose entry_type intelligently.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('Walk the ENTIRE Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods'), states the ordering and page size, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling artg_search ('not for answering a question about one drug'). An agent can route between artg_list and artg_search without opening either schema.

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?

It names both when to use (bulk ingestion or counting) and when not to (a single drug question), and points to the correct alternative artg_search. It also points to artg_entry for indications, effectively routing across three siblings.

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