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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors (list only authenticated user's history, newest first, free, pagination, status filter) but does not mention potential rate limits, error conditions, or the exact response structure. It adds useful context beyond a minimal description, but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. No filler 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 list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, ordering, cost, pagination, and filtering. It lacks explicit return type details, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds concise confirmation of pagination ('bounded offset pagination') and the status filter's allowed values, but does not add substantially beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('audition history'), scopes it to 'the authenticated user's', and specifies ordering ('newest first'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like audition_status or delete_audition.

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?

While the description clearly indicates the tool is for listing the user's audition history, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools such as audition_status and revise_audition are not referenced, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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