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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: default visibility is public-only and include_all exposes non-public fields and lists. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but that is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the resource scope and default behavior. The sentence is a fragment and the endpoint path is somewhat redundant, but there is no wasted exposition.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (data fields and sub lists) and the default vs include_all scope. The remaining gap is around response structure, which is minor here.

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 the schema already documents include_all as 'Also include non-public fields and lists.' The description restates the default public-only behavior, adding slight clarity but no syntax or usage detail 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 identifies a specific resource: the fields and sub lists available through the sign-up API. It lacks an explicit verb but clearly distinguishes the sign-up form context from generic field/list siblings. The endpoint path reinforces purpose.

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 parenthetical explains that public fields/lists are returned by default and that include_all expands scope. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus robly_list_fields or robly_list_sub_lists, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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