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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior beyond them: responses are summarized unless `fields` is supplied, there is no pagination, and the reply is silently capped at `limit` (default 100). It does not mention auth or rate-limit behavior, but the truncation semantics are exactly the kind of trait that prevents misuse.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and definition, then immediately the highest-value caveat (summary unless `fields`). Dense parentheticals pack a lot into few words, though the parenthetical about groups/`owner` is syntactically awkward and interrupts the flow.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: short summary by default, fuller shape via `fields`, at most `limit` records, no paging. Combined with the annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: a concrete `fields` example (id,name,email,data1), the `limit` default of 100, and the non-obvious fact that `owner`/groups are group ids rather than resource owners. It says nothing about `workspace_id`, `modified_after`, `name`, or `resource_ids`, which is why it falls short of 5.

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 resources') and immediately defines what a resource is (people, rooms, equipment, vehicles). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_resource, which returns ALL fields of one, so an agent can route between list vs. get without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete routing advice — pass `fields` for more than the short summary, use get_resource for the full record of one — plus a note that there is no paging and that `limit` caps the reply. It does not state explicit exclusions against other list siblings (list_events, list_groups), but the resource-vs-group relationship is clarified.

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