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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, so the description only needs to add operational traits — and it does: newest-first ordering, 50 items per page, and metadata-only payloads. It doesn't mention whether there is a total count or how paging terminates, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope/order/paging, query behavior, return shape plus sibling pointer). No filler and the most load-bearing facts come first.

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 only two optional params, no output schema, and covering annotations, the description fills every remaining gap an agent needs: what is listed, in what order, at what granularity of results, and where to go for full content.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by specifying that query searches titles and content rather than some other field set. The page parameter gets no additional treatment beyond the schema's 'Page number, from 1', which is acceptable given full schema documentation.

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 with scope ('the account's own pastes') plus ordering and page size. It also contrasts with the sibling get_paste ('use get_paste to read one'), so the agent can distinguish listing from reading without inspecting 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?

Names the alternative for retrieving full content (get_paste) and explains how to narrow results with query ('Omit to list everything' is in the schema). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, such as when search over pastes is unnecessary or when pagination should be avoided.

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