entitlements_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return shape ({entitlements:[...], count}), which helps the agent understand the output despite the output schema existing. It doesn't discuss pagination or filtering behavior beyond what the schema implies, but with strong annotations and a simple list operation, this is sufficient.

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 two short lines: a purpose statement and a return type declaration. Every word earns its place, and the use of bold labels ('Purpose', 'Returns') improves scannability. No fluff, filler, or repetition of schema contents.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations. The description covers the purpose and return shape, which is the core. It doesn't elaborate on pagination behavior or the meaning of the less-documented optional parameters, but for a straightforward list operation with an output schema and clear annotations, it is mostly complete. The slight gap is the lack of guidance on filter combinations (e.g., using sku_ids vs user_id), which would be useful for complex queries.

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?

Schema description coverage is 56%, meaning several parameters (after, limit, before, exclude_ended, exclude_deleted) lack descriptions in the schema. The description does not enumerate or explain these parameters, so the agent must infer their semantics from names alone. However, the parameter names are domain-standard (Discord pagination fields like after/before/limit, boolean filters), and the core required parameter application_id is described. The description's mention of 'for an application' reinforces the main parameter but does not compensate for the undocumented optional parameters. Given 56% coverage, the description could add more, but it does provide the key return structure.

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 'List entitlements for an application' with a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'for an application' scopes it to the required application_id parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like entitlements_get by focusing on listing, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 implies usage ('List entitlements for an application') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this instead of entitlements_get, entitlements_consume, or entitlements_create_test. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving it to the agent to infer from the tool name and general list vs. get patterns.

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