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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add two useful behavioral facts: results exclude secrets and are restricted to the caller's own subtree (an authorization scoping rule). It says nothing about pagination behavior, which matters given limit and cursor parameters.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the parameter gaps.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but four parameters with defaults and zero schema coverage are completely undocumented. For a paginated tree-listing tool, callers need to know how limit/cursor interact and what include_inactive does, and neither the schema nor the description says.

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 must carry the burden, and it does not. It never explains include_inactive, limit, cursor, or that token_id defaults to 'self', leaving an agent to guess at pagination and filtering semantics.

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 descendant tokens of token_id') and adds a scope qualifier ('Only your own subtree') that separates it from get_token or get_tenant_tree. It does not name a sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

'Only your own subtree' is a hard constraint that implicitly tells the agent when this tool will and will not return data, and it contrasts implicitly with get_token for a single lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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