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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description genuinely adds value beyond them by disclosing that inbound API keys are never returned, which tells the agent what sensitive data will be absent. It says nothing about ordering or total counts, but that is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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?

It is certainly brief with zero filler, but it is a bare fragment rather than a structured description — no leading verb, no lead sentence about what the call returns. Brevity here reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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, read-only, three-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the definition is just about sufficient. It still never explains what a 'DSP' record represents or what fields come back, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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%, so page, search and per_page are fully documented in the schema (including the max-100 cap). The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is a noun phrase ('DSP configuration') that never states a verb or that this returns a paginated list; the agent relies on the name/title ('List dsps') to know it's a listing tool. The parenthetical adds a useful data-exposure detail but not a purpose statement. Vague but not tautological.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to call this to enumerate DSPs before creating/updating one, or how it relates to the similarly named sibling list_dsp_requests. The agent must infer the choice from names alone.

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