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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the underlying endpoint (GET /properties/{name}) and clarifies that results are ids, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or response shape. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the enumeration and the endpoint reference. The long value list is slightly dense but each entry maps to a real category, so it earns its place; no wasted 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 single-param, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: the purpose, the valid categories, and the fact that results are ids. Missing detailed return format, but that is minor against the annotations covering safety.

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% and the enum already lists all 14 valid values with the description 'Which lookup list.' The description's enumeration largely mirrors the enum rather than adding format or selection guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (the organization's lookup lists) and enumerates the exact lookup categories available. An agent can immediately tell this fetches reference/id data, distinct from the get_/list_ record tools in the sibling set.

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?

Frames the tool's role as supplying 'the ids other tools need' and calls out the specific dependency on neon_create_activity for time zones. This gives clear context for when to reach for it, though it stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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