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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful extra context beyond that: the page cap ('up to 20 per page') and the returned field set. It still omits what happens at the end of pagination and whether any auth/scope is needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, returned fields, page limit, intended downstream use, and endpoint. Every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does so by enumerating the returned fields plus pagination behavior. Complete enough to call correctly; a note on what an empty result or final page looks like would close the remaining gap.

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 both page_token and max_page_size are fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's 'up to 20 per page' merely restates the schema's 1-20 maximum and adds no new syntax or format detail.

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+resource ('List depots') and enumerates the fields returned (start/end addresses, working hours, vehicle type, max stops), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It is distinguishable from spoke_get_depot by the plural 'list' framing, but does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

'Use the ids when creating plans' tells the agent why the result matters and connects it to spoke_create_plan, which is genuine usage context. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to the other list tools (drivers, operations, plans), so the routing decision is left mostly implicit.

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