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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: by default temporary segments are included, only_named restricts to saved ones, and the underlying GET /segments endpoint is disclosed.

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, zero filler, and the most important fact (what these are and where segment_id is used) is front-loaded. Every clause carries 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?

For a trivial read-only single-parameter list with full schema coverage and safety annotations, this covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It omits return-field/pagination detail, and there is no output schema to compensate, which is the only 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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter is documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the semantic distinction between temporary and saved segments and confirms the default behavior, which meaningfully clarifies when the flag matters.

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 names the resource (saved segments) and defines it inline as "keyword filters," plus its downstream role as a segment_id source for other tools. The action verb is only implied by the title/generic listing semantics rather than stated in the body, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 context for use: these values feed segment_id in other tools, so an agent knows why to call it. It also clarifies the default-vs-only_named decision, but names no explicit alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition.

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