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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. Beyond that, the description adds important behavior: Upper itself has no paging, this tool pages locally, limit defaults to 100 and maxes at 500, and replies indicate truncation via next_offset.

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?

The description is dense but well front-loaded: returned fields come first, then filter modes, then pagination behavior, then endpoint. Every sentence carries operational information, with no redundant restatement of the name.

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 still tells the agent what fields are returned and how to detect more results via truncated/next_offset. It also covers all five parameters and the main filtering modes, making the definition complete enough to invoke 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying parameter interactions that matter when constructing calls: scheduled is only meaningful with route_id, unscheduled is used without route_id, and offset should follow next_offset from the prior reply.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List the team's stops') and enumerates the returned fields, including optimized order and route/custom ids. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as upper_create_stop, upper_update_stop, and upper_optimize_route.

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?

It explicitly explains the three filtering modes: route_id for one route, scheduled true/false only with route_id, and unscheduled=true without route_id. It also states that with no filter all active stops are returned, leaving little ambiguity about how to call the tool.

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