list_facts

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses ordering, the default scope, and precisely what include_archived surfaces (superseded, forgotten, expired, legacy). It does not mention return format beyond the field list or any auth/limit behavior, but for a read-only lister that is minor.

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 dense sentences that front-load the ordering and scope before the filter details. Every clause carries information, though the second sentence packs three separate concerns tightly.

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 3-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the default behavior, the archival expansion, the filter domains and the returned fields (status, supersedes chain, source, legacy flag). Little an agent needs 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fully enumerates the values for kind (constraint | preference | observation | goal) and category (injury | equipment | schedule | body | nutrition | note) plus the semantics of include_archived. This is exactly the missing information the schema lacks.

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 ('audit surface for the curated facts') plus the ordering ('oldest first'). It is clearly distinct from the mutation siblings remember_fact, forget_fact and import_facts, so an agent can place 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 a clear default ('active facts only') and the condition that selects the other mode ('include_archived=true returns the full history'). It also states the two filtering dimensions. It stops short of explicitly naming when-not or naming sibling alternatives, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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