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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are limited to 'reviewed v2 entity actions' and 'explicitly marked guarded MCP workflows,' and limit is 'capped by the global read limit.' This clarifies scope and constraints without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured and economical: a one-line purpose, a focused sentence on how to narrow to a single contract, a compact Args list, and a short Returns summary. No sentence is wasted, and the most important purpose information is front-loaded.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is largely complete: it explains filtering, return contents, and the global read limit. The main gap is the undocumented correlation_id parameter and the absence of any pointer to sibling tools for related operations, but these are minor given the output schema and the description's clarity.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does so well for most parameters: entity is an 'exact weclapp entity name,' action is 'exact case-sensitive,' method applies 'when a path supports multiple methods,' and offset/limit semantics are stated. However, correlation_id is not described, leaving one parameter unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List reviewed v2 entity actions and explicitly marked guarded MCP workflows.' This clearly identifies the tool as a catalog/lookup operation and distinguishes it from siblings like execute_api or preview_entity_action by focusing on listing contracts rather than executing or previewing them.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need an action contract with availability, payload fields, risk, and guarded next tool—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as preview_entity_action, execute_api, or get_schema. The guidance is practical for filtering results but stops short of explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use direction.

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