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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: an authentication prerequisite ('Requires connecting a Valet account') and a security-relevant exclusion ('never returns a variable value'), plus the attachment states that can appear.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource, and ordering; the two short trailing sentences carry the usage cases and the auth/exclusion notes. The middle enumerations of fields and attachment states are dense but each earns its place by describing returns in the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back and explicitly rules out variable values, and it states the auth requirement. It omits pagination or result-count limits, which is the main remaining gap for a list tool.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents org_name including the omit-default behavior. The description only implies org scoping and adds no syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the organization's resources'), gives ordering ('newest first'), and enumerates the returned fields (name, provider, plan, state, attachments). The org-scoping distinguishes it from the catalog sibling, so an agent can tell it apart from list_catalog_resources.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: finding a resource to attach by name, or one no app holds before deleting it. It does not name the alternative tool (list_catalog_resources) or state when NOT to use it, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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