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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds value beyond that: results are scoped to 'this R3 account', each entry carries its latest version, and a how-to document is named for follow-up. Return shape and pagination behavior are not discussed, but an output schema exists, lowering the burden.

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 the verb and resource, then the definitional example, then sibling routing, then the doc pointer — each clause carries new information with no repetition. Length is justified by the novelty of the 'shared code module' concept for an agent.

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 covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile, and the description supplies the conceptual model plus sibling routing. It is nearly complete; the only omitted detail an agent might want is whether listing is paginated by default and how many pages to expect, though the cursor parameter hints at it.

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 both parameters (limit with default 25/max 100, cursor as nextCursor continuation) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about paging strategy, result ordering, or cursor lifetime. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 (List) and resource (this R3 account's shared code modules) and then defines the resource concretely with an example name and the exact `this.import('ship-core')` usage syntax, so an agent unfamiliar with R3 modules understands what it is enumerating. It also names the three sibling module tools and their distinct roles, so the tool is distinguishable without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: r3_module_read for code, r3_module_write for create/change, r3_module_usage for usage sites. That gives clear selection context. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement (e.g. 'call this first to discover a module name before calling read'), so it is not a full 5.

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