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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful context by noting it is read-only despite being a POST and naming the underlying endpoint. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the read-only clarification. No redundant or filler content.

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 agent gets no description of the returned override shape or pagination continuation behavior, though the read-only annotation and endpoint reference cover the safety profile. Adequate but leaves return-format gaps.

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 limit, cursor, and namespace are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no further parameter meaning, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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) plus resource (per-identifier overrides) and scopes it to a single rate-limit namespace. This cleanly separates it from the singular unkey_get_ratelimit_override and the mutation unkey_set_ratelimit_override.

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 namespace-scoped listing wording implies when it is used (to enumerate overrides) but never states when to prefer it over unkey_get_ratelimit_override or lists any exclusions/prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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