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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: public records are anonymous, while private records require current scope, activation, and room access. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining visibility and access constraints, with no contradiction.

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 primary verb and resource front-loaded. Every clause adds value: the first defines the operation, the second defines the access model.

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?

This is a low-complexity read-only list with one optional parameter, and the access semantics are well covered. It lacks an explicit statement about return shape or pagination behavior, but offset is reasonably self-explanatory and no output schema exists to lean on.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter, offset, with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions offset, pagination, or how the value affects results, so the agent must infer meaning from the parameter name alone.

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 opening phrase 'List accessible interaction records' names a specific verb and resource, and the public/private sentence adds useful scope. It is clearly distinct from create_interaction or read_interaction, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling list_* tools.

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 this is the tool for listing accessible interactions and spells out access conditions for private records. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer read_interaction or other list tools, nor does it give any 'when not to use' guidance.

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