🟢 List blueprints. Use limit/offset from the user. Paging hints in response footer.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — paging hints appear in the response footer — which tells the agent how to iterate, but says nothing about scoping, rate limits, or result volume.

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, no padding, and the core action plus the paging instruction are front-loaded. The emoji consumes a little space but the text is otherwise tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a list tool with a search parameter and a sibling details tool, the definition omits when-not-to-use guidance and any scoping context.

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 description coverage is 100% with all three parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description references limit/offset but adds no format or range detail beyond the schema, and never mentions search_string.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 limit/offset from the user" gives a concrete calling instruction, and the footer note implies iterative paging. But there is no guidance on when to list blueprints versus fetching a single blueprint's details, so usage context is only partially implied.

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