List identities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by clarifying that identities are sender profiles and that the default one is included in the result, going beyond what the annotations provide. No contradictions are present.

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 a single, dense sentence with no filler. It leads with the verb and object, then clarifies scope and the inclusion of the default identity; every clause earns its place.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description, annotations, and parameter schema together provide sufficient guidance. The explicit mention that the default identity is included is a helpful behavioral detail, though the description does not address pagination or exact response fields, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description for administration_id is complete (100% coverage) and already explains the default and how to discover ids. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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?

The description states the specific action 'List' and the resource 'identities (sender profiles)' with a clear scope: an administration can invoice under them, including the default one. This distinctly separates the tool from sibling list_* tools and from get_identity without needing to open the 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?

The description implies this tool is for enumerating invoice-ready identities for an administration, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over get_identity or other list_* tools, nor does it mention exclusions. The parameter description recommends calling list_administrations first, but that guidance is about parameter discovery rather than tool selection.

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