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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the storefront URL is fixed server-side and empty result pages return 200 with an empty array, which prevents an agent from misreading an empty page as an error. It still doesn't mention rate limits or ordering, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and source, then behavior, then the sibling pointer. Efficient overall, though the limit/page sentences duplicate schema content and could be dropped without loss.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. With the sourcing, empty-page semantics, and sibling routing all present, nothing an agent needs to invoke this list tool 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's limit/page text repeats the schema defaults and maximums almost verbatim, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema already carries the parameter documentation.

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 ("Returns normalized collections from the PSA Team Store") and pins the exact source with the storefront URL. It also names the sibling tool psastore_collection_products and the boundary between them, so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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 to the alternative: "Use psastore_collection_products to list PSA Store collection products." This gives clear context for when a sibling is the right call, though it doesn't fully state when-not to use this tool or the inverse condition selecting it.

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