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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond that: it reads the register (not files), returns newest-first records, and exposes monthly quota consumption. No contradiction with 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?

Three short, information-dense sentences. The main action and ordering come first, followed by return content, quota, filter, and source caveat. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the returned content ('what each carried and where it went', quota usage) is valuable. The main missing piece is exact output shape, but for a simple read-only list tool the description is adequate for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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%, and the description's 'Filter by kind' only restates the kind parameter. It does add that 'newest first' applies to the result order, which aligns with limit's schema description, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the codes this server generated'), defines ordering ('newest first'), the content ('what each carried and where it went'), quota usage, and filtering by kind. This clearly separates it from the create-oriented sibling 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?

The intended use is implied by the verb and object, but the description never says when to prefer this over siblings such as license_status for quota or license_activate for code creation. It gives no explicit when-not or alternative guidance, only the data-source note 'reads the register, not the files'.

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