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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned shape (ids, titles, summaries, source films), which is real value since no output schema exists. It says nothing about pagination, result caps, ordering, or read-only safety, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource definition and examples front-loaded and the navigation hint at the end where it is most useful. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 three-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, what fields come back, and where to go for detail. It omits collection size, pagination, and ordering behavior, which an agent would still have to discover empirically.

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 67%: the two analytics parameters are fully documented in-schema and the enum's allowed values are visible, so the schema does most of the work. The description only loosely gestures at the category filter via 'one format' and never explains what the enum values mean, adding little beyond structured data.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list_formulas') and immediately defines what a formula is with two concrete examples ('the silent UI workflow', 'the delayed hardware reveal'). It also names the complementary sibling get_formula, so an agent can separate browsing from fetching a single item.

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 closing clause 'fetch one with get_formula' clearly establishes the browse-then-detail workflow and routes the agent away from this tool when it wants a single formula. There is no explicit statement of when listing is preferable (e.g. discovery vs. filtered lookup), which keeps it short of a 5.

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