list_resource_tokens

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the 'Core/Enterprise only' licensing restriction and implies read-only behavior via 'List'. However, it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects), pagination, or return format. The description provides some useful context but lacks full transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every word adds value, and the structure is clean.

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 filtered-list tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys that it returns a list of resource tokens. It includes the licensing caveat and optional filters. It lacks some details like response shape or pagination, but for this simple tool, the description is reasonably 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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering and ordering, which maps to the parameters, but the schema already describes each parameter in detail. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, not elevating the score.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('all resource tokens'), and the optional capabilities ('filtering by database name and/or token name, and ordering'). It also distinguishes from sibling token tools by specifying 'resource tokens' and the Core/Enterprise restriction.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when listing resource tokens, with options to filter by database or token name and to order results. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is well-scoped and implies appropriate usage.

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