List config entries compactly

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context: it uses the same config_entries/get WS command as the sibling, projects down to 5 fields, includes every state (so the agent must filter), and raises RuntimeError on WS/auth failure. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then cleanly sectioned into Use when / Not for / Returns / Errors. Every section earns its place, though the 'Returns' dict listing is mildly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 zero-param read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description is complete: it tells the agent when to use it, when to use the alternative instead, the projection shape, and the failure mode. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing or misleading.

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+resource (list every config entry as a compact summary) and names the sibling it differs from (system_list_integrations). An agent can distinguish the compact projection from the full-payload tool without opening either 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?

Has explicit 'Use when: scanning or filtering integrations by domain/state without the full raw payload' and 'Not for: every field HA stores — use system_list_integrations'. It names the alternative and the exact condition that selects it.

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