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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safe read nature is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about keyset pagination and passing next_cursor to continue, which is not conveyed by annotations. It does not disclose rate limits or response formatting, but the output schema covers return values.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that covers the core action, dimension constraint, and pagination behavior. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with a full input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It explains the key pagination mechanism and dimension values, and does not need to detail return values since an output schema exists. No significant gaps remain.

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% for all three parameters (limit, cursor, dimension), so the schema already explains them. The description re-emphasizes the dimension values and cursor pagination, but does not add meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 tool lists covered tickers for a dimension, with specific verb ('List') and resource ('covered tickers'), and includes dimension values. It distinguishes from most siblings that are 'get' operations, but does not explicitly contrast with snacs_coverage_get, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 clear usage context: listing covered tickers for a dimension, with keyset pagination and cursor reuse. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently clear to guide selection.

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