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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the output field set, the sort order by category then title, and the relationship to contract_assemble. It does not mention pagination or exact-match semantics, but those are not critical for this simple read 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the action and result fields, then provides ordering and routing guidance. Every phrase earns its place: output shape, sort order, category narrowing, and the clause_search alternative.

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?

This is a simple, one-parameter read-only list tool. The description covers the returned data shape, the optional category filter, the ordering semantics, and the sibling tool to use for word searches. There is no output schema, but the description itself supplies enough return-shape information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 carries the burden for explaining the category parameter. 'Narrow with category' adds meaningful filter semantics beyond the bare string type in the schema, though it does not specify exact-match behavior or provide allowed values. Still, for a single optional parameter, this is sufficient guidance.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'the library', and explicitly enumerates the returned fields: id, title, category, tags, and variables. It also distinguishes itself from clause_search by noting that clause_search is for words, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening 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 gives clear usage direction: narrow with the category parameter, and use clause_search when searching by words. It also explains that the list ordering is the same order contract_assemble uses, which gives helpful context for when an agent should call this tool.

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