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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: results are ordered newest first and are scoped to the caller's own quests. It says nothing about pagination behavior, whether a default limit applies, or how large a result set can be.

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 tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the filter list appended as optional detail. The status enumeration is long but each value earns its place given the schema has no enum. No filler wording.

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 simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials are present, but an agent still cannot tell whether results are truncated, what the default limit is, or what fields come back. Adding one clause about the limit parameter would close the remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for status by enumerating all nine valid values, which the schema does not (status is an unconstrained string). However, the limit parameter is left entirely unexplained, with no default or mention of the 200 cap.

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 specific verb and resource ("List your quests") plus a default ordering ("newest first") and ownership scoping via "your". It clearly distinguishes itself from get_quest by being a list, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 word "Optionally" signals that no filter is required, implying the tool can be called with no arguments for a full listing. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_quest for a single quest, nor any mention of how to page through large result sets.

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