List the boundary sets on this account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the response contents (counts and granted keys per set) and a non-obvious caveat that grantedKeys is always empty on the shared demo key. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering, or error behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by only the semantics needed to interpret the output. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is returned and a key edge case. Minor gaps remain around response ordering, empty-state behavior, and pagination, but an agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the input level. The description does explain the meaning of return fields, which is useful because no output schema exists, but parameter semantics themselves are not applicable.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lists the boundary sets on this account') and even enumerates the returned fields (boundary counts, granted API keys). It is clearly distinct from the mutating siblings like create_boundary_set and add_boundary, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 supplies interpretive context ('a set only matches during a lookup when it is available AND granted to the key making the call'), which implies why an agent would call it. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus lookup_location or how to act on the results, leaving routing to inference.

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