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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description only adds the underlying HTTP route (GET /api/v2/account/friend/all/{status}); it says nothing about result shape, ordering, size limits, or whether an empty status returns an empty list.

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 very short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the route. Nothing is padded, though the route string is largely redundant with the tool name and the parameter placeholder.

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 single-enum-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, the definition is essentially complete. The only real gap is disambiguation from the near-duplicate rejected-friendship sibling.

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% and the single parameter has an explicit enum (pending, accepted, rejected), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The phrase 'by status' merely restates the parameter and adds no format, default, or semantic detail beyond the enum.

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 (get), resource (all friendships) and the filter dimension (by status), so the agent knows exactly what the call returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as get_account_friend_rejected, which is effectively the status=rejected case of this same resource.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should be called to list friendships for one status, but nothing states when this is preferable to get_account_friend_rejected or get_account_friend_status_side. No exclusions, prerequisites, or pagination caveats are given.

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