List Testimonials

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

Annotations declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description's mention of returning full records and including unpublished content adds behavioral context beyond the safety profile. No contradiction.

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, immediately states verb and resource, adds definition and scope, then output format. No wasted words.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and return format. It might benefit from pagination details, but not required for this simple tool.

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?

Zero parameters; description clarifies the tool lists all testimonials with no filtering, and the parenthetical defines the resource. Schema coverage is effectively 100%, so baseline 4 applies.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as listing testimonials, defines what testimonials are (featured career outcomes and short community reviews), and specifies scope (including unpublished). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_testimonial and create_testimonial.

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?

Description implies use for retrieving all testimonials without filtering, but doesn't explicitly contrast with get_testimonial or mention when not to use. Clear context but no exclusions or alternatives named.

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