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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing ordering (newest first) and the important distinction that it returns share links only, not the private control link, which comes from create_agenda.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and ordering, and the parenthetical example is compact and illustrative. Slightly verbose but every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still highlights the key semantic (share links vs control link) and the accompanying counters. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

With zero parameters there is no schema surface to compensate for, so the baseline is 4. The mention of share_token clarifies what the caller can do with the returned values, though that concern belongs more to return semantics than parameters.

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 (Lists) and resource (every agenda saved in the signed-in account), adds ordering (newest first), and clarifies the scope includes the share_token. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_agenda or create_agenda without opening any 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?

It gives explicit triggering contexts: at the start of a conversation when the user references an earlier agenda, and after create_agenda reports the account is full. It names create_agenda but does not explicitly frame it as the complementary write path or state when NOT to use list_agendas (e.g., when the specific agenda id is already known).

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