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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context absent from structured fields: results are annotated with an `access` state (yours, unlocked, locked) and a handle/slug `ref`, telling the agent what it can expect back and how visibility differs per result.

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 tight sentences: the scope constraint leads, followed by the result-shape detail and a routing pointer to get_list. No filler.

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 covers the two non-obvious return fields and how to name a result downstream. It omits what else a result row contains, but for a simple 3-param search that gap is minor.

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%, so query, limit, and category are already documented in the schema. The description's mentions of `access` and `ref` are output fields, not parameters, so it adds nothing beyond the schema baseline.

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 (search) and resource (live lists) plus an explicit scope boundary — 'every live list on Curated, not just the person's own' — which distinguishes it from list_my_lists, saved_lists, and find_lists without opening a schema.

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 'not just the person's own' phrasing implies when this tool is appropriate (broad discovery vs. own collections), and get_list is named as the follow-up. But no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given for the ambiguous sibling find_lists, so usage is only implied.

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