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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination model ('one page at a time') and the GET endpoint, which is useful, but omits rate limits and what the paginated response actually contains.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the alternative named second. The endpoint snippet is compact, though 'GET /entities/{entity}' duplicates info the schema essentially implies.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented 7-param schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, and sibling routing. Completeness is slightly short because with no output schema, return shape isn't described, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 each of the 7 parameters documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only the endpoint and the page-at-a-time framing, not additional parameter syntax or format detail.

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 (List) and resource (records), scopes it to one entity type with concrete examples, and hints at pagination semantics ('one page at a time'). It also names the sibling beaconcrm_filter_records, letting an agent distinguish listing from searching without opening 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?

Explicitly routes field-value searching to beaconcrm_filter_records, which is clear alternative guidance. However, it doesn't state when to use beaconcrm_get_record or beaconcrm_list_record_types instead, leaving the remaining sibling boundaries implied.

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