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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context: naming adds a report link, un-naming reverts to an anonymous code, and only claimed sites are eligible. It does not contradict 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 two compact sentences that front-load the main action and then explain the show=false reversal. Slightly awkward phrasing and lack of explicit structure keep it from being ideal, but it is efficient.

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 simple two-parameter toggle with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the key prerequisite and both naming outcomes. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the tool is low-complexity.

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 the schema already defines both parameters, including show=false behavior and the default. The description reinforces the meaning of show=false and adds the claimed-site constraint, but contributes little additional parameter syntax 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 states a specific action: naming or un-naming a claimed site on the public leaderboard, including the report link when named. It is clear despite the misleading tool name mttr_list, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as mttr_claim.

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?

It gives the important prerequisite that only a claimed site can be named, and explains that show=false reverses the naming. However, it does not explicitly route the agent to mttr_claim for claiming or name alternatives, so usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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