List Packages

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description is not obligated to restate safety. It adds real context the annotations cannot: the required authentication mode, plus the meaning of a 403 response (missing reseller privilege or active impersonation), which lets an agent self-diagnose failure.

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 short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the authentication constraint, then error interpretation. Each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs, and the most important fact (what the tool returns) is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and with zero parameters there is nothing schema-adjacent to explain. The one thing structured fields cannot convey for this tool, the reseller-level auth requirement and its failure mode, is fully documented.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 applies. Nothing in the schema needs semantic expansion, and the description does not waste space inventing parameter guidance.

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?

"Lists the names of all packages defined under the reseller account" gives a specific verb (lists) and resource (packages) plus a scope (reseller account, names only). The "names only" framing implicitly separates it from get_package, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer that distinction.

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?

It gives clear call-context guidance: invoke while authenticated as the plain reseller, not during user impersonation. It does not state when to prefer get_package or list_reseller_users instead, so routing between siblings is left to inference, but the credential condition that actually determines success is spelled out.

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