list_queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds real context with "named, reviewed" – signalling a curated, pre-vetted catalog rather than arbitrary ad-hoc queries – but says nothing about whether results are paged, ordered, or how large the catalog can get.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the trailing clause earning its place by telling the agent what metadata comes back. No waste.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and full annotation coverage, almost nothing is left for the description to carry. The only minor gap is that the description doesn't clarify whether this returns the query bodies or just names and descriptions, though the output schema covers that.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly adds no pseudo-parameter guidance and its framing (list of named queries with their answers) sets expectations for the result shape.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("List") on a specific resource ("named, reviewed queries this warehouse offers") and even indicates the payload ("what each answers"). It is clearly a discovery/catalog tool, distinguishable by inference from describe_query and run_query, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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 intent is implied: this is the enumeration step an agent performs before calling describe_query or run_query. But there is no explicit "use this when you don't know a query's name, then use run_query" routing, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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