clearances_list

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 return type (JSON array), ordering (newest first), the API default page size of 50, and the key-scoping of results. It omits whether all statuses are returned by default and says nothing about pagination beyond the default limit.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then return behavior, with no filler. The trailing enumeration of status values duplicates the schema enum and is the one line that does not fully earn 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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return shape, ordering, and default limit that an agent needs to interpret results. Only pagination/cursor behavior and the default status coverage are 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description largely restates what the schema already declares — the same five enum values and the same default of 50. It adds no filter-combination or format guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearances") plus the scope ("for this API key"), which clearly distinguishes it from clearances_get, clearances_approve, and clearances_create. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing from the verb alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "List" plus optional filters signals a read/enumeration call, and the sibling names make the alternatives guessable. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus clearances_get or when to prefer filtering by status over fetching all.

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