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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies read-only and there is an output schema, but pagination behavior (limit/cursor) and the meaning of 'one system' scoping are not stated. Reasonable but gaps remain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Efficient, though it packs three filters into a compound clause.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but with 7 undocumented params and only partial filter explanation in the description, an agent cannot fully grasp the pagination or scoping semantics before calling.

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 should compensate. It explains external_id ('outside id') and ids ('Doing Work ids') plus the kind filter, but leaves limit, cursor, and the required shop_id/system undefined, so compensation is only partial.

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 ('List') and resource ('outside ids a shop has recorded for one system'), which clearly distinguishes it as the read counterpart to sync_setRef. The intent is clear 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?

It hints at a use case ('to find the Doing Work record for it') but never states when to use this over sync_changes or sync_setRef, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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