get_virtual_agent_topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not state safety. However, the openWorldHint=true suggests results may not be exhaustive, but the description doesn't clarify this or disclose pagination, ordering, or that topics may be limited without category filters. The parenthetical (sys_cs_topic) adds a useful internal table reference not in the annotations, which is minor added value, but overall behavior details remain thin.

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 a single concise sentence with the parenthetical table reference adding useful precision. Every word earns its place - no filler. It's appropriately minimal though it could add a usage or behavior note without bloating.

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 simple filtered-list tool with 3 self-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety. However, given the existence of a nearly identical sibling (list_va_topics_full) and the openWorldHint annotation, the description should clarify what distinguishes this listing from the alternatives and whether results are paginated or complete.

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%, meaning all three parameters (limit, active, category) are described in the schema. However, the description adds nothing beyond the schema - it doesn't give value hints for the category filter, explain the default limit behavior, or clarify whether 'active' interacts with category filtering. With full coverage, baseline is 3, but the description contributes zero value on top, pulling it slightly below.

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 'List Virtual Agent topics available in the instance (sys_cs_topic)' has a specific verb (list) plus a specific resource (Virtual Agent topics) and the underlying table reference. It distinguishes from siblings like get_va_topic (singular) and list_va_topics_full (which appears to be a fuller/alternative listing variant), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from these siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_va_topics_full or get_ms_copilot_topics. There is no mention of when this is the preferred tool, prerequisites, or exclusions. The openWorldHint annotation implies non-exhaustive results but this isn't tied to usage guidance in the text.

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