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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds crucial behavior: namespacing rules ('sub-labels are separate namespaces, not filters'), that omission lists unlabeled queries, that entries are stored containment-EXPANDED queries, and the auth requirement. This goes well beyond 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 a bit dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, scope, tenant_id semantics, return format, and auth. It front-loads the main function and is not bloated.

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 the non-obvious namespace semantics and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed (your queries), how tenant_id works, what each entry contains, and the authentication requirement. It could mention error cases or pagination but is largely complete for a straightforward list operation.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the only parameter, tenant_id: optional, a sub-label within the caller's own namespace, must match the one used at registration, and omission has specific semantics. This is far more than the schema provides.

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 the function: 'list YOUR registered standing disruption queries' using a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly scopes to the calling account, distinguishing it from broader list tools and sibling register/delete operations.

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 provides context that this lists queries scoped to the calling account and gives precise instructions on tenant_id usage ('Pass the SAME tenant_id you registered with...'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools like register_standing_query, but the 'your' scope and namespace explanation strongly imply when to use.

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