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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail of 'busiest first' ordering, which is useful. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default limit, or what happens when no results are found, but with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Add-on studios in the catalog'), then adds the ordering detail ('busiest first') and the optional filter. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 simple list tool with 2 optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the resource, ordering, and filtering. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the default limit or pagination behavior, but the schema's default value and output schema likely cover the return shape. Given the low complexity, this is complete enough.

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 50%: the 'q' parameter has a description ('Substring of the developer name'), but 'limit' has no description beyond its schema constraints. The description's 'optionally filtered by name' maps to 'q', adding slight context. With 50% coverage, the description partially compensates but doesn't fully explain the limit parameter's semantics (e.g., it's the max number of results returned). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('developers' / add-on studios), and adds a distinguishing detail: 'busiest first, optionally filtered by name.' This clearly identifies what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_addons_for_aircraft or search_addons, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can tell it apart.

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 implies usage context: it lists add-on studios in the catalog, sorted by busiest first, with optional name filtering. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or list_addons_for_aircraft, nor does it mention exclusions. The 'optionally filtered by name' hints at the q parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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