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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: it warns that this read-only operation is exposed as a POST, which would otherwise mislead an agent into treating it as a mutation, and it pins the underlying endpoint (POST /v2/permissions.listPermissions). It does not describe return shape or paging behavior beyond the schema.

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 short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the non-obvious safety caveat, then the endpoint mapping. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 paginated list tool with a fully documented parameter schema and readOnlyHint=true, the description covers what an agent needs: what is listed, that it is safe, and the real HTTP method. Only minor gaps remain (result volume, whether search is case-insensitive).

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% (limit, cursor, search all documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter usage such as search matching semantics or default page size, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 (List) and resource (permissions) scoped to the workspace, which cleanly separates it from the sibling unkey_list_roles and the list_* family. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or alternate, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiating.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. unkey_list_roles), and no statement about pagination workflow beyond what the cursor parameter schema already says. The agent gets the purpose but no routing logic.

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