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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real value: it discloses the exact return envelope shape, notes values come in both formatted (field_x) and structured (field_x_raw) forms, and states the rows_per_page ceiling of 1000. It omits auth/rate-limit context, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return shape then the paging/sort/filter controls. No filler, though the endpoint string and envelope body are somewhat compressed.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the paged envelope and the dual formatted/raw value convention, which is the key thing an agent must anticipate. For a 6-param nested-filter tool it is nearly complete, missing only error/failure behavior.

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%, including the filters shape and operator list, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter mentions (page, rows_per_page, sort_field, sort_order, filters) largely restate the schema and add only the max-1000 reminder.

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 an object's records') and pins it to the underlying endpoint GET /objects/{object_key}/records. This clearly separates it from knack_get_record (single record) and the other siblings without ambiguity.

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?

It explains how to page, sort, and filter, which is operational guidance, but never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as knack_request or knack_get_record for a single record. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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