List Annotations

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses default ordering (most recent first) and the existence of retracted entries that can be excluded, but says nothing about permissions/auth, pagination behavior, or the shape of returned records.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core capability and ordering are front-loaded, and the filtering capability follows. Nothing is repetitive or redundant.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It covers ordering and filtering but omits the return shape, pagination/limit semantics, and auth requirements, leaving it only minimally adequate for a listing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains that results can be filtered by metric and that retracted entries are optionally included. However, the 'limit' parameter and the defaults (limit=50, include_retracted=false) are never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters unexplained.

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 ('Read historical metric annotations and operator notes') plus an ordering guarantee (most recent to oldest), which is more than the name alone conveys. It implicitly contrasts with the write-oriented siblings annotate_metric and retract_annotation, but never names them, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 description implies when the tool is useful, i.e. pulling historical annotations filtered by a specific KPI, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as query_kpis or get_executive_summary. Usage must be inferred from the capability statement.

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