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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the response includes boundary counts and granted API keys, and explains the availability/grants condition that affects matching. This is useful, non-redundant information.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and output content; the second adds a crucial behavioral nuance. 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?

For a no-parameter listing tool without an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what the response contains (boundary counts and granted API keys) and explains the matching rule, covering all an agent needs to call 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it correctly focuses on behavior and output instead.

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 states the tool's action (Lists) and resource (boundary sets), and specifies the output includes boundary counts and the API keys (id and label) each is granted to. It distinguishes itself from siblings (create_boundary_set, add_boundary, lookup_location) by focusing on listing existing sets rather than creating or adding.

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 context about how sets match during lookups, implying this tool is for inspecting which sets are available and granted to the calling key. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives, such as 'use lookup_location for actual matching.' The guidance is clear but not prescriptive.

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