Jisr capabilities

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the descripion adds meaningful operational context: it reports permission checks against API key, role, and operator enablement, plus remediation hints. This goes beyond the structured hints and gives an agent useful expectations about the tool's diagnostic nature.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the four-fact breakdown is clearly structured, making the tool's behavior easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only behavior, the descripion fully explains what the tool returns, what dimensions it covers, and that it offers rationale and ownership for unavailability. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description appropriately focuses on output content rather than inputs.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lists'), names the resource ('every documented Jisr operation'), and details the scope with four concrete fact types. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling data-list tools, which target specific entities rather than the operation catalog itself.

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 implies its use for discovering which Jisr operations are available and diagnosing why some are not, by stating the four facts and that it explains unavailability. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of a sibling tool or state exclusions, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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