List Entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds two pieces of non-obvious context: results are paged, and entry text is fenced as untrusted (a prompt-injection warning the agent cannot infer from schema or annotations). It does not explain how to advance pages or what a page response contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the safety note, then the routing hint. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety and the sibling alternative. The one gap is that it promises 'page by page' results but exposes no page/cursor parameter and gives no hint about how paging is driven.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents limit, topic_id (with a pointer to list_topics) and course_id (pointer to list_courses). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('List top-level entries in a discussion topic') plus scope qualifiers ('top-level', 'page by page') that separate it from list_entry_replies and get_full_topic_view. An agent can pick it 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?

'Prefer get_full_topic_view to read a whole thread at once' names a concrete alternative with the condition that selects it. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you only need top-level entries and want paged results' clause, so the positive case is implied rather than stated.

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