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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which the description correctly does not contradict. However, it adds essentially nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination limits, default page size, sort direction default, or what a 'scored token' or tier/verdict means in behavioral terms.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the sort options. Efficient, though the sort list duplicates the schema enum rather than adding information.

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 8-parameter list tool with 25% schema coverage, no output schema, and no description of pagination behavior or filter semantics. The description omits far more than it includes for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the sort enum already in the schema. Tier, category, limit (max 100), offset, descending, verdict, and query semantics are left undocumented or ambiguous (e.g., is sort ascending by default? what is tier?).

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+resource ('Page through scored tokens') with scope qualifier 'optional filters' and enumerates the sort axis. It is distinguishable from sibling tc_search_tokens in that paging/listing is the core action, though the boundary with tc_screen is not addressed.

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?

Use context is implied by 'optional filters' and the sort list, but it never says when to choose this over tc_screen, tc_search_tokens, or tc_get_token, nor what the filters actually filter on. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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