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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the important trait: results are capped at 50 unless a limit is supplied, so the agent knows output can be truncated. The read-only nature is conveyed by "List," but there is no mention of permissions, ordering, or rate behavior.

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, front-loaded with scope and the sibling distinction before the operational details. Every clause earns its place, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary; the description supplies what structured fields don't, namely cross-workspace scope and the truncation behavior. For a two-parameter read-only list tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the limit parameter raises the otherwise hard 50-result cap, and status is framed as an optional filter. That cap-versus-parameter relationship is not visible in the schema text alone.

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) and resource (quests) plus a precise scope: across ALL workspaces for the account, explicitly contrasted with "the connection's default." That scope clause is what separates it from the sibling wyrm_quest_list, so an agent can pick between them 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?

The description gives clear context for when this tool applies ("the account-wide view of open work") and notes the optional status filter. It never names wyrm_quest_list as the alternative or states when to prefer the narrower per-connection listing, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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