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 covered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape ('paged table of name, ID, project and short link') and reinforcing that nothing is created, which is useful given there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, followed by return contents and a safety note. 'Read-only. Does not create anything.' is slightly redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation and with each other, but the repetition is cheap and clarifying.

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 six-parameter, zero-required list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers when to call it, what comes back, and that it is non-mutating. Pagination limits or default page size behavior are the only notable omissions, and the schema covers those parameters.

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 parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only a thin gloss — 'by name or project' maps loosely to q and idproject — and says nothing about pagination, sorting or per_page behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource: browse/find QR codes by name or project, plus the follow-on use case of obtaining an ID before editing or checking scans. That separates it from get_qr_code_by_id and get_qrcode_scans conceptually, though no sibling is named explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

"Use this when the user wants to find or browse their QR codes by name or project" gives a clear triggering condition, and the ID-lookup framing covers the second legitimate use. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_qr_code_by_id or get_qrcode_scans instead, so no exclusion guidance.

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