ListUserTransports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 500-row ADT API limit, the descending sort order, the auto-default to the previous year, and that the tool warns when the limit is hit. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or confirming read-only semantics, keeping it at a 4 rather than 5.

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 most important constraint (always use from_date) is front-loaded, which is good, but the description is padded with emoji, bold, and repeated warnings — the from_date admonition appears three times. The signal is real but the repetition and formatting inflate length without adding information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: transport type, status, date, target system, description, in descending order. Combined with the status code legend (D/R/L/O), an agent has enough to interpret results, though a note on permissions would complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already carry most warnings, but the description adds actionable meaning by tying from_date to the 500-row cap (why providing it prevents hidden recent transports) and explaining the interaction with max_results. That added reasoning lifts it slightly above the baseline 3.

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 ALL transport requests for a user' — and adds implementation detail (queries CTS tables E070/E07T directly, covers modifiable and released transports). It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like GetTransportRequest or GetTransportVersions, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use this tool to find a developer's transports, both in-progress and released' gives clear usage context, and the from_date guidance tells the agent how to invoke it well. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one, so no exclusions or routing are provided.

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