List package identifiers in a scope

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious domain behavior: results are ascending, paging is offset/limit, and identifiers are numeric with package = scope.identifier.revision. No mention of rate limits or auth, hence not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope semantics before the pagination note and the next-step pointer. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and all parameters plus the safety annotations are fully specified. Domain specifics an agent needs (scope forms, identifier numbering, paging) are all present, leaving nothing material missing for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema with bounds and defaults; baseline 3 applies. The description restates the scope forms and paging model but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ("List the package identifiers in one scope") plus ordering and pagination behavior, and clarifies the scope forms with concrete examples. It also distinguishes itself from edi_list_revisions by pointing at the next call, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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 a clear follow-up path ("Next: call edi_list_revisions(package='scope.identifier')") and directs scope resolution to edi_list_scopes via the schema note. It never says when to prefer this over edi_search_packages, which is the main sibling ambiguity left to inference.

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