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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope-of-world are covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the org-wide scope of the result set and the exact fields returned. It says nothing about ordering, result size, or truncation behavior for large organizations, which is the remaining behavioral unknown.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the what-and-scope front-loaded before the sibling routing hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming the five fields. It omits any indication of result volume or ordering, a minor gap for an unfiltered org-wide listing, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for; the baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of org scope usefully confirms that no filtering input is accepted.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ("List every surface") and pins the scope to "the caller's organization," then enumerates the returned fields (id, name, page URL, status, live_state). An agent can distinguish this enumeration tool from surface_get without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly routes single-surface lookups to surface_get, giving a clear alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool (e.g., large orgs or filtered listings), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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