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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring a safe read, the description still adds real behavioral context: the read path is a JSON:API GET on /jsonapi/{entity_type}/{bundle}, and filtering is limited to a single field. That single-field constraint is a genuine capability boundary the schema alone does not spell out.

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 compact sentences: the capability and its constraints come first, the underlying HTTP mapping second. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 9-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, its filter scope, and the wire mapping, and the schema handles per-parameter detail. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether results are paginated by default or what envelope shape is returned.

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 9 parameters documented inline (sort prefix, page[limit]/page[offset] mapping, filter_operator defaults), so the baseline is 3. The description only summarizes the parameter families (sorting, pagination, includes, single-field filter) without adding syntax or constraints 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource and scope ('a collection of resources for an entity_type/bundle'), which implicitly separates it from the singular drupal_get_resource. It stops short of naming any sibling tool explicitly, so the discrimination is inferential rather than stated.

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 implied by 'List a collection of resources for an entity_type/bundle' plus the enumeration of optional modifiers, so an agent can infer this is the collection-read path. However, there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as drupal_search_content for cross-entity queries or drupal_list_resource_types for discovering types.

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