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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that output is always grouped by owner, which is useful behavioral context but not contradictory. It doesn't explain openWorldHint implications but coverage is good.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence directly states when to use it, and the second explains the grouping rationale. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers the key behavioral constraint (grouping) and usage context. No missing information necessary for agent selection.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the descriptions are generic ('Value for the limit owners parameter.'). The tool description does not add further meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool lists session IDs and explains the grouping by owner due to uniqueness constraints. It distinguishes from siblings like list_xdala_sessions by specifying that it returns IDs grouped by owner.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this when the user asks for session IDs.' While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the context of sibling tools provides that information. The description of why grouping is needed adds clarity.

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