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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the REST path (GET /v1/Families/archived) and the lead-file characterization; it says nothing about result ordering, retention, or whether archived families reappear in the main list.

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 short sentences, action first, nothing redundant. Every element earns its place, including the parenthetical qualifier.

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 paginated list with fully documented parameters and annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The residual gap is that it does not clarify the archived/active relationship with the sibling list tool or describe pagination termination, though the schema's next_page hint partially covers the latter.

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%, with page, page_size, family_id, family_name and location_id all documented inline. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List archived families') and adds the clarifying gloss 'lead-file', which separates the archived population from the general families list. It stops short of naming jackrabbit_list_families as the counterpart for active records, so the distinction is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer that this is the archived counterpart of jackrabbit_list_families, and nothing states whether an active-family search should ever fall back to this endpoint or vice versa.

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