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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the shape of both result modes: list fields (destination, status, scan count) and detail fields (image, 7- and 30-day scans, phone types, full link history). It omits list size limits, pagination, or ordering behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary list behavior, then the detail mode, then the workflow use. Every sentence earns its place, though phrasing like "with where each one goes" is slightly colloquial where "destination URL" would be sharper.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers both invocation modes, result contents, and the downstream workflow it serves. The only gap is list-result behavior at scale (limits/ordering), which is minor for a user-scoped QR collection.

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% — both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does add mode semantics for id (a single code in detail versus a list) that the schema does not spell out, but it never mentions the search parameter at all, so it neither compensates nor detracts meaningfully.

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 a specific verb and resource ("List the signed-in user's Foundaree QR codes") and immediately enumerates what the listing contains: destination, working/paused status, and scan count. It also disambiguates the tool's second mode ("Give an id to see one code in detail"), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get, find, or search_opportunities without opening a 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 gives explicit workflow guidance: "Use it before changing, pausing or deleting a code, to find its id," which routes the agent here ahead of update_qr_code/delete_qr_code. Mode selection is also stated (pass an id for detail). It stops short of naming any alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it is clear context rather than a complete decision rule.

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