list_vmrs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint (true) and idempotentHint (true), so the description doesn't need to reiterate safety. However, it adds no extra behavioral details beyond parameter constraints, which is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 for purpose, then a bullet-like list of parameters. Every line adds value, no waste. Front-loaded with what the tool does.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers all input parameters well, including pagination details and a warning. It lacks output description but output schema handles that. Minor gap: no mention of default sorting or total count.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: exact name match, case-insensitive substring, tag filter, limit with default and warning about 0, and offset for pagination. This significantly aids correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool lists VMRs (Pexip conference objects) with a specific condition (service_type=conference), distinguishing it from generic list tools and the singular get_vmr.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vmr or other list tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameter descriptions.

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