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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that results are network-wide and filterable, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering — modest added value against an already-covered safety profile.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the filtering capability second. No filler, though it is sparse enough that it could have carried a bit more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotation-provided safety, the description covers essentials. However, it omits pagination/volume expectations and does not route the agent away from look-alike anomaly siblings, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema (with severity's allowed values listed there). The description merely restates the same filter names, adding no syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List all unresolved anomalies on the network.' An agent can distinguish it from report_anomaly and resolve_anomaly by the 'list'/'unresolved' framing, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like get_agent_anomalies or get_anomaly_stats.

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 names the available filters but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternates such as get_agent_anomalies, get_anomaly_stats, or report_anomaly. No conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are stated.

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