List records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: the result is a 'bounded page' with a total-matched count and a truncated flag, explaining how to interpret and act on truncation, which is valuable for using the tool correctly.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating purpose, followed by a sentence covering paging behavior and an alternative tool. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (pagination, filtering, total count, truncation) and the lack of an output schema, the description explains the return shape and expected behavior thoroughly. It also provides a pointer to get_record for full details, making the description functionally complete for an agent.

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% with descriptions for both limit and query, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning—it mentions 'optionally filtered by a search query' and 'bounded page' which aligns with existing schema fields but doesn't provide new details beyond what's already documented.

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's function: 'List records from the upstream system, optionally filtered by a search query.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool create_record by focusing on read-only listing, and also contrasts with get_record for fetching a single record.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use get_record to fetch one record in full.' Also gives actionable advice on handling truncation ('call again with a narrower query if truncated is true') and clarifies the meaning of the truncated flag.

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