list_va_topics_full

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a non-destructive read operation with potentially varying results. The description adds that it returns 'category and status details', which is useful but does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, response size limits, or how filters interact with results. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 that directly states what the tool does. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no unnecessary words or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 that the tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing some behavioral hints, the description is somewhat complete but lacks important context. It does not explain the default behavior when no filters are applied, pagination details, or the response structure. For a listing tool, more information would help the agent use it effectively.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema effectively documents parameter semantics. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('List all Virtual Agent topics') and specifies the included details ('with category and status details'). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_virtual_agent_topics or list_va_categories, which could cause confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information on prerequisites, preferred contexts, or situations where this tool is not suitable. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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