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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts — results are unordered and capped by `limit` — but says nothing about truncation behavior or whether the count is discoverable. With annotations carrying most of the burden, this is adequate but thin.

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 routing sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is conventional and short. Slight redundancy in restating a default that already lives in the schema keeps it off a 5, and the '(unordered)' aside could be folded more tightly into the first clause.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the alternative sibling, and the bound on results. Nothing essential is missing, though the absence of any note about ordering/pagination semantics beyond the cap is a minor 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry `limit` alone — and it does, defining it as 'Maximum number of procedures to return. Default 100.' That fully disambiguates the single parameter, though the repetition of the schema's own default value is the only extra it adds.

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 and resource ('List stored procedures') and adds a scope qualifier ('unordered', bounded by `limit`) that an agent can act on. It also names the sibling `match_procedures` as the contrasting tool, so the two can be told apart without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for task-relevant lookup: 'To find procedures relevant to a task, use `match_procedures`.' That implies this tool's role is raw enumeration, but it never states positively when an agent should want an unfiltered list.

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