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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned fields, default and maximum limit, owner filtering, and the pagination contract via nextCursor and hasMore. This gives an agent enough behavioral context to call and iterate safely.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by usage routing and then input/output/pagination details. Every sentence adds value and nothing is redundant.

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?

Despite having no annotations, this description covers what the tool does, when to choose it over search, all inputs, the output shape, and the pagination loop. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly and process the results.

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 75%, covering owner, limit, and cursor. The description mostly restates the schema's meaning for type and owner, but it adds useful context about limit's default and paging flow. Since the schema already documents most parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: lists entities of one type for browsing, and explicitly contrasts itself with search for finding by words or name. This makes it easily distinguishable from the sibling tools without needing to open schemas.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool ('Use to browse a type') and routes name/word-based lookups to search. It could more explicitly contrast with get_entity or list_types, but the browsing context and search alternative provide solid practical guidance.

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