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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context: authentication route, workspace derivation from the credential, newest-first ordering, cursor paging, and the full field set returned. It does not mention rate limits or page-size defaults, but those are partly in the schema.

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 body is dense and largely front-loaded (auth, then purpose, then paging, then read-only), and little is redundant. But the opening is a sentence fragment — "With your trooth.co sign-in, or the workspace's agent key with the settings area (Bearer tra_...)." — which costs readability right where the agent looks first.

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-param, zero-required list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is close to complete: auth path, scoping source, ordering, pagination, returned fields and read-only status are all stated. Only sibling disambiguation 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 coverage is 100%, so limit and cursor are already documented with bounds and defaults — a baseline 3. The description goes beyond the schema by asserting that the workspace is never an argument, which tells the agent not to attempt a scope parameter, and by noting cursor paging behaviour that ties the two optional params together.

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 ("Lists Agent authority's delegations") and enumerates the returned fields — key thumbprint, role, company scope, permissions, expiry, revocation state, receipts — so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the near siblings trooth_agent_keys_list or trooth_delegation_create/revoke, leaving that distinction to inference.

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 useful activation context — sign-in or workspace agent key, Bearer tra_..., settings-area scope — and states that the workspace is derived from auth rather than an argument, which prevents a common mis-call. However, it never says when to prefer this over trooth_agent_keys_list or when to follow up with trooth_delegation_revoke/create, so usage versus alternatives is only implied by the read-only listing nature.

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