list_specs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds pagination defaults and filter semantics beyond the schema, but does not mention authentication needs, output format, error behavior, or rate limits—leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 efficient sentences: first states purpose, second covers filtering and pagination. No wordiness, front-loaded key information.

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 listing tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains filters and pagination adequately but omits what the response looks like (e.g., fields returned, ordering). Without output schema, the description should hint at the return structure to be fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that filters can be combined and how pagination works (limit/offset navigation), but most parameter meaning is already clear from schema descriptions. The added value is modest.

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 the verb "List" and the resource "available 3GPP specifications." It mentions optional filtering by series and ID prefix, plus pagination—fully distinguishing this from sibling tools that list images, OpenAPI specs, or versions.

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 explains optional filtering and pagination, so the agent knows how to use it. However, it does not provide any guidance on when NOT to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., search, get_section), missing the opportunity to prevent misuse.

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