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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are newest-first, scoped to the workspace, and include specific fields per report family. This is meaningful operational detail without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the resource scope follows, and the ordering behavior is included efficiently. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, fully documented parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is listed, the scope, the ordering, and the distinguishing content of each report family. Nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds context about the returned fields per report type, which indirectly helps with the 'type' parameter, but it does not add new meaning to q, limit, or offset beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('Account and Person Intelligence reports run in your workspace'), then clarifies the content of each report family (ICP disposition, buying-committee size, title, signal count). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling get_ and run_ tools without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

The description makes the listing use-case clear and scopes it to reports already run in the workspace. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_account_intelligence or run_account_intelligence, but the framing is contextual enough that an agent can infer listing vs. fetching vs. generating. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it stops short of a 5.

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