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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the API endpoint (GET /waivers), the fact that page numbers are API-required with defaults of page 1 / 20 records, and the shape of each record. It stops short of describing result ordering or what happens when filters match nothing.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by pagination, filtering, and endpoint. The telegraphic style ('status draft/active/inactive') is dense but every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 naming the fields returned, and it covers pagination defaults and filter semantics. For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage this is close to sufficient; result ordering and empty-result behavior are the only notable omissions.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description does add one non-obvious fact the schema cannot convey — that pagination is effectively mandatory at the API level despite zero required parameters — plus the default values, but it adds nothing further on the two filter fields.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the waivers of the account') and enumerates the returned fields (title, event, status, activities, response counts), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name the sibling get_waiver or explain the list-vs-get split, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 filtering guidance ('Filter by event name (waiver folder title) or waiver title') implies when this tool is the right choice, but the description never says when to prefer it over otterwaiver_get_waiver or the latest_* list tools. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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