List records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value on top: it discloses the return envelope {total, offset, rows}, the user_id scoping behavior, and the fact that filters are arbitrary resource-specific pass-throughs (important, non-obvious behavior). It omits pagination defaults and any rate-limit notes.

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 with no waste: purpose first, return shape second, the two parameter behaviors third. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return shape. A 19-value resource enum and 9 params are handled adequately, though the meaning of 'resource' values and pagination defaults could be spelled out more.

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 only 33% across 9 parameters, and the description only meaningfully explains user_id, filters, and search; sort, order, limit, offset, and raw are left to the schema or undocumented. The user_id note does add a real constraint beyond the schema (only hardware/accessories/licenses apply), which earns it above a 2.

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 or search Snipe-IT records of one resource type') and scopes it to a single collection, which implicitly separates it from the singular 'get' sibling. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 two concrete usage rules: pass user_id to retrieve a user's checked-out hardware/accessories/licenses, and use filters for resource-specific query params with a pointer to 'describe' for the valid keys. No explicit exclusion against 'get' or 'lookup', so it stops just short of a 5.

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