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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying the sort order and the returned usage attribution fields, including deduped recent adopters capped at 50 and lastUsedAt.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, intended audience, and return composition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what each entry contains. The read-only annotations cover safety, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, leaving only minor gaps such as error behavior or broader CSD context.

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?

There is one optional limit parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents its range and default. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 and resource: return CSDs sorted by adoption in descending usage-count order. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as suggest_csd_templates or pcc_orchestrator_list_templates.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: useful for first-time operators who want to see what capabilities others are publishing. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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