anon_get_lostfound

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: results sorted by foundAt descending and capped at 200 records. It also notes the project is derived from the API key, which prevents the agent from inventing a projectId argument.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, access rule, ordering and row cap in the first sentence, followed by the endpoint and key-resolution note. Dense and efficient; the raw HTTP method/path line adds orientation value but is marginally redundant for an agent.

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 output schema and a low-complexity read endpoint, the description supplies the ordering and 200-row cap needed to reason about results, plus the auth/identity rule. It stops short of describing return fields, but for a list tool with read-only annotations that gap is minor.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the q or status filters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. It does add one useful parameter-adjacent fact — that projectId must NOT be supplied — though the nested q/status descriptions are left to carry filter semantics.

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 concrete verb+resource: list lost-and-found items, matching the plural list endpoint as opposed to the singular anon_get_lostfound_item_id sibling. The plural-vs-singular resource is implied by the name rather than spelled out, so it does not fully differentiate from siblings in text, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 an access prerequisite ('project members can view') and implicitly scopes the call to the caller's own project via API key, but never states when to use this list endpoint versus anon_get_lostfound_item_id, anon_get_lostfound_share, or anon_post_lostfound. Usage context is implied, not explicit.

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