List warranties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are sorted soonest-expiry-first and each result carries id, item, provider, dates and status. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which is the remaining gap for a list tool.

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, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the return fields, then the routing guidance. The parenthetical '(status expiring)' is a compact, useful pointer; no sentence is decorative.

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 single optional enum parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, response fields, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the enum definitions are already documented; the description still adds value by mapping a natural-language intent ('what's about to run out?') to the specific 'expiring' value, telling the agent which filter to choose rather than just what it means.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Warranties on file across all items'), plus the sort order ('soonest to end first') and the exact fields returned. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_item and what_needs_attention, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggering questions ('what's still under warranty?', 'what's about to run out?'), points to the 'expiring' status for the second case, and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them (get_item for a single item's warranties and claims, what_needs_attention for urgent items in a combined view).

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