list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: the valid status and tier value sets and the important semantics that an absent status means 'stable' (while the schema default is an empty string). This prevents a real misinterpretation.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and filter list, with the concrete example last. Minimal waste; the terse fragment style is dense without being cryptic.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the main filter semantics well but omits bundle scoping and pagination (limit/offset), which matter for an agent that may need to page or scope results. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% with 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains type, tag, status, tier and stale — including the critical 'absent = stable' default — but says nothing about bundle, limit or offset, leaving three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 names the resource (Concepts) and enumerates the filter dimensions it applies, which is specific enough to picture the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'search' tool, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 supplies one concrete usage scenario ('The review worklist after an ingest: status=draft tier=unverified') which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it never states when to use 'list' versus 'search', nor any exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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