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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it does disclose the default cap of 50 and that the cap can be overridden via limit, plus what is returned per quest (an id). Read-only behavior is only implied by "List," and nothing is said about authorization scope or whether a limit above 50 is honored or clamped.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the distinguishing scope claim, then usage framing, then return shape and cap. Minor waste in "The account-wide view of open work," which also sits slightly awkwardly against a status filter that permits "completed" and "all."

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 two-parameter, fully-documented, zero-required list tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, default status, and result cap adequately. Remaining gap is the missing explicit contrast with wyrm_quest_list and any note on maximum limit values.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema; the description restates the status filtering and the 50-item default without adding new semantics (e.g., what "all" returns, or any upper bound on limit). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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") with an explicit scope qualifier: "across ALL workspaces for this account (not just the connection's default)." That scope contrast implicitly separates it from the workspace-scoped wyrm_quest_list sibling, though it never names the alternative tool.

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 account-wide view of open work" frames the intent, and the parenthetical clarifies the scope difference from the default connection. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not rule or a named alternative (wyrm_quest_list), so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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