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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the filtering requirement but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, result size, or what a call without a filter would do, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a list operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the requirement, with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves useful detail unstated rather than trimmed as waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 3-parameter list tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin: no mention of limit/pagination, default result size, or behavior when both hashes are supplied.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that brand_hash and idea_hash act as filters and that one of them is needed, but it omits the limit parameter entirely, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and text.

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 clear verb+resource ('List scripts'), which an agent can distinguish from get_script and generate_script in the sibling set. It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't further scope what is listed or how it differs from other list-style tools.

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 one precondition ('Requires brand_hash and/or idea_hash'), which is useful routing context, but offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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