list_considerations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully adds the concrete return payload shape (index, class, instance_id), which is real behavioral value with no output schema, but says nothing about ordering, behavior on a state with zero considerations, or error cases.

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 compact sentences with the operation front-loaded and the return shape second. Nothing is padded, though the return line partially restates tree_path and state_name, which are already inputs.

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?

With no output schema, spelling out the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is edge-case behavior (empty lists, unknown state name) for an otherwise simple read tool.

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% and both parameters carry descriptions ('Asset path to the UStateTree', 'Name of the state'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no format, path syntax, or naming-convention detail beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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 (considerations) scoped to a state, and names the fields returned. It does not distinguish itself from the closely named siblings list_conditions and list_evaluators, which follow the identical pattern, so an agent must infer the resource from the noun alone.

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 never says when to call this instead of get_consideration_info, list_conditions, or list_evaluators, nor does it state any prerequisite beyond the implied need for a valid state. Usage is only inferable from the verb and parameters.

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