list_registers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does convey that results are paginated and restricted to 'validated' registers, which is useful filtering context, but it says nothing about page-size limits, total counts, or the shape of returned register entries.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key resource and pagination constraint come immediately. It is efficient for such a simple tool.

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?

For a minimal single-parameter list tool this is nearly adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description could clarify what a register list entry contains or how paging terminates. A small but real gap remains.

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?

There is only one parameter (page) and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage, including its 1-based default. The description's reference to pagination aligns with and reinforces the schema, so no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('validated register lists from the SeqCode Registry'), making the read-only listing purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly name how it differs from get_register, though the list/get naming convention among siblings makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_register or the other list_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb 'list'.

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