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

The annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by stating results are newest first and scoped to the account's saved references.

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 three focused sentences with the core listing behavior front-loaded. Each sentence contributes useful information: scope, filtering, and cross-tool usage.

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 optional-parameter list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It does not describe the response shape in detail, but the cursor schema covers pagination and no output schema is present.

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 already documents all three parameters, including the `kind` enum and pagination fields. The description reinforces the `kind` values and gives an example, but adds little beyond the structured schema for `limit` and `cursor`.

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 verb and resource: list the account's saved references. It also enumerates the reference kinds and ordering, making clear how this differs from create_reference, delete_reference, and list_characters.

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 clearly explains how to narrow results with the `kind` parameter and gives an example. It also notes how references can be mentioned in generate prompts, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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