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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of each returned record (status, records processed, timing), which matters since no output schema exists. It omits any mention of pagination behavior despite page/per_page inputs.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource and its returned fields come first, followed by the filter and the upstream endpoint mapping. Slightly terse on pagination, but nothing is wasted.

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 described schema and no output schema, the description covers the resource, returned fields, and filtering. Pagination semantics are the only notable omission, and those are partly carried by the 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, per_page, and sync_id are already documented in the schema. The description restates the sync_id filter in plain language but adds no format, range, or default detail beyond what the schema provides — the baseline for full coverage.

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+resource ('List sync run history') and parenthetically enumerates what each run contains (status, records processed, timing). This distinguishes it from census_list_syncs and census_get_sync_run, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 by the tool name and the parenthetical return summary; there is no statement of when to use this list endpoint versus census_get_sync_run for a single run or census_list_syncs for sync configurations. The 'Filter by sync_id' note is a parameter hint rather than routing guidance.

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