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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds pagination ('a page of') and a cost signal ('1 request'), which is meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Telegraphic and front-loaded: the resource is named first, then the filtering rule, then the sibling relationship. No wasted sentences, though the fragment style borders on terse for a 13-parameter tool.

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?

For a 13-parameter filtered list, the description explains only one filter and leaves most of the query surface unaddressed. Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the parameter-level guidance gap is significant.

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 38% across 13 parameters, and the description compensates for almost none of it, mentioning only pathName filtering while name, alias, guard, order, activated, valueType, and defaultOrderDirection remain undocumented anywhere.

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 (list a list's indexes) and notes return content (buildStatus, usage hint). It also differentiates from the sibling get_list, which 'includes every index too', so an agent can pick between them without opening 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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use rule ('Filter by pathName to find one index') and routes the agent away from get_list when pagination/filtering is desired. No explicit when-not or exclusion beyond that.

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