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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful routing context about which endpoint is hit, but omits pagination behavior and return shape despite paginated params.

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 lead sentence plus three tight bullets, front-loaded with the core purpose and branching logic. No filler sentences.

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?

Adequate for a read-only list tool whose annotations cover safety and whose params are fully schema-documented. Minor gap: no mention of pagination behavior or response format, though no output schema exists.

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 100%, so all six params are already documented. The description clarifies the interaction between idproject and q, which is additive but minimal over the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (QR codes) with explicit scope. Distinguishes from siblings like get_qr_code_by_id (single fetch) and generate_qr_code (creation) by its 'list' semantics.

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?

Explains the two optional filters and their combined effect, effectively telling the agent when to provide idproject vs q. Does not name an alternative sibling for cross-project listing, but the branching behavior is clearly described.

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