List feature toggles

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and closed-world, and the description still adds real behavior: the multi-source union, ordering by code, the per-item field set, and the { items, hasMore } envelope with the 'page with skip while hasMore is true' rule. No output schema exists, so this return-shape disclosure is genuinely load-bearing rather than redundant.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: scope first, then payload shape, then paging and sibling routing. The telegraphic field-list style is compact and front-loaded rather than padded.

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 five-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies item shape, response envelope, pagination contract, source semantics and an alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the result without opening anything else.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot: `skip` is tied to the hasMore loop, and the source enumeration is framed as the union of four providers feeding one list. It does not restate top/search/enabledForCurrentUser details, which the schema already handles.

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 the resource (feature toggles), the aggregation scope (every source: DB rows, web.config, package metadata, GlobalAppSettings) and the ordering (by code). It also names the sibling that handles the single-feature case, so the agent can separate list-features from get-feature at a glance.

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?

Explicitly routes per-user/role override lookups to get-feature and points to feature-toggle-guide for deeper context, plus gives the paging rule. It stops short of enumerating when-not-to-use cases beyond that one sibling, but the main selection decision is covered.

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