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

The annotations already establish that the operation is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the returned fields and the non-obvious caveat that isRequired is stored only on the definition and ignored by the engine, though it does not clarify that the catalog is accessed through paginated responses.

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 compact sentences front-load the operation and resource, enumerate the relevant definition fields, and then state a focused semantic caveat. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of the input schema.

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 simple three-parameter read, the schema and annotations cover basic invocation and safety, while the description supplies result content and an important domain caveat. It is nearly complete, but the unqualified "all" alongside paginated inputs could lead an agent to expect the entire catalog in one call, and sibling selection remains unaddressed.

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 100%, with page, size, and keyword already documented, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further detail about pagination defaults, result limits, or keyword matching.

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 opening "List all fact definitions" provides a clear verb and resource, while "input variable schema" clarifies what the definitions represent. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as lexq_facts_unregistered or lexq_facts_action_metadata.

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?

The wording implies use when inspecting the fact-definition catalog, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not explain when keyword filtering is useful or when a sibling such as lexq_facts_unregistered is more appropriate.

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