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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it returns personal data of signers, lite mode reduces payload by excluding agreement text and event info, and it is a GET endpoint.

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 short and front-loaded: scope first, then lite mode, then sibling alternatives, then the personal-data warning. Every sentence adds useful selection or safety information.

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?

The description covers the main behavioral concerns for a date-range list tool, including personal data and lite mode. Since there is no output schema, it could explain more about the return shape, but the schema already documents pagination parameters in detail.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters in detail, including date boundaries and the page_index ambiguity. The description only repeats the lite mode behavior and adds no further parameter semantics.

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 the exact resource and scope: a page of waivers signed in a date range. It explicitly distinguishes this from waiverfile_export_waiver_data and waiverfile_count_waivers, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

It gives clear routing for export and count use cases and mentions the lite mode for smaller payloads. It does not explicitly compare against search_waivers or find_waivers_by_reference, but the date-range scope makes the primary use case clear.

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