list_access_grants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the concept of access grants but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but lacks detail beyond that, making it acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb-resource pairing and adds a useful clarifying parenthetical. There is no wasted or redundant wording, making it exceptionally efficient.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema. The description provides the key conceptual context (defining access grants) but omits explicit mention of pagination or response details, which are partially covered by the schema. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% as both 'page' and 'per_page' have descriptions ('Page number', 'Results per page (max 100)'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specifies the action ('List') and resource ('access grants'), and the parenthetical defines access grants as 'records produced when an access request is finalized', which semantically distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_access_requests. This is a specific, non-tautological description.

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 implies usage by clarifying that access grants are the finalized records from access requests, suggesting this tool is for listing finalized grants, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like list_access_requests or provide exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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