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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious domain behavior – that triggers bridge a trigger_key to a template and expose expected variables – which an agent could not infer from the annotations. It stops short of describing return format or pagination.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise domain gloss and the actionable routing instruction.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully hints at return content ('available trigger_key values and understand what variables each trigger expects'), and pagination is covered by the schema. Combined with the read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call 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 coverage is 100%, with both limit and offset fully documented in the schema including defaults and maxima. The description adds nothing about these parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 and resource ('List all configured email triggers') scoped to the connected Meisa product, and defines what a trigger is ('maps a trigger_key to an email template'). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like meisa_create_trigger, meisa_update_trigger, and meisa_test_trigger.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it: 'Use this before calling meisa_send_email to discover the available trigger_key values.' It routes the agent to the specific downstream tool and states the condition that motivates the call, leaving nothing to inference.

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