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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/open-world safety, and on top of that the description discloses the return shape (ids, names, enabled flags, created/modified dates), the lack of paging, and the truncation-at-limit behavior, plus the underlying endpoint. Missing only auth/rate-limit context.

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 tight sentences: scope first, then filtering, then result semantics, then endpoint. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 steps in to say what fields come back and that results are unpaged but capped. For a 3-parameter read-only lister that is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so `name`, `limit` and `is_enabled` are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description's 'cut at limit' line adds a small amount of meaning about how the limit behaves, but it does not explain the name-match semantics or the enabled-filter interaction.

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 plus the exact scope: 'resources of every type (customers, equipment, items, suppliers, lists) of the SafetyChain tenant'. The enumeration implicitly separates it from the per-type siblings like safetychain_list_customers, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied via the 'every type' framing and 'Filter by name'. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this cross-type lister over safetychain_list_customers or safetychain_list_equipment, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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