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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns a list and that the 'section' parameter filters that list. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, though the word 'list' strongly implies a non-destructive catalog operation.

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 one short sentence plus a compact list of allowed values. Every part earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema already present. The description covers the tool's purpose and the semantic meaning of the parameter. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide when to call it and what to pass.

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 input schema only defines a string with a default of 'all' and no enum or description. The tool description adds meaningful value by enumerating the accepted section values: search, groups, analytics, settings, or all. It does not explain what each section contains, but for a straightforward catalog filter this is largely sufficient.

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 clearly states that this tool lists all PARSI tools, with an optional section filter. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are individual operations rather than a catalog/discovery tool. The implicit verb 'list' combined with the resource 'all PARSI tools' is specific and unambiguous.

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 tells the agent the section values ('search, groups, analytics, settings, or all'), which implies usage for browsing available tools by category. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over directly invoking a specific sibling tool, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage guidance is present but only implicit.

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