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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the JSON:API endpoint it targets (GET /jsonapi/{entity_type}/{bundle}) and the real constraint that filtering is limited to a *single* field, which an agent could easily miss.

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, capability summary first and API mapping second, with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers scope, capability set, and the underlying endpoint. Return shape and paging defaults are secondary for a tool whose safety profile is already declared and whose parameters are fully documented.

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 every one of the 9 parameters is already documented in the schema, including the query-param mappings and defaults. The description only restates the categories (sorting, pagination, includes, single-field filter) without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (a collection of resources) scoped to an entity_type/bundle, and enumerates the supported capabilities. It implicitly separates itself from drupal_get_resource (single item) via 'collection', but never names the closest alternative, drupal_search_content, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The description implies when this tool applies (listing a bundle's resources with sort/paging/filter), but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and never routes the agent to drupal_search_content for cross-bundle or full-text lookups. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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