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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: authentication is required, results are scoped to the calling account, and each entry is the stored containment-expanded query as it percolates against documents. This gives the agent concrete expectations about authorization and return content 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?

The description is front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by dense, non-redundant details about tenant_id semantics, return contents, and authentication. Aside from the harmless product-label prefix, every sentence earns its place by resolving a real ambiguity.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description tells the agent what each entry contains—the stored, containment-expanded query—and the prerequisite of an authenticated key. Combined with the annotations, this gives the agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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%, so the description must fully explain tenant_id, and it does. It defines tenant_id as an optional sub-label within the caller's own namespace, requires it to match the value used at registration, and clarifies that omission selects the namespace of queries registered without one rather than all queries. This completely compensates for the minimal 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 precise action and resource: 'list YOUR registered standing disruption queries' and clarifies it is 'scoped to the calling account.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like register_standing_query, delete_standing_query, and list_disruption_events, so an agent can identify the correct operation without opening the schema.

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 provides strong contextual guidance: list only your own registered queries, and pass the same tenant_id you registered with. It also explains the critical non-obvious behavior that omitting tenant_id lists only queries registered without one, not all queries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scoping rules remove the main usage ambiguity.

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