List Micro private access grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by explicitly promising that bearer tokens are not exposed, which is valuable security-relevant context for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and object, then adds the key security qualifier. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 simple, has full schema coverage for its one optional parameter, has an output schema, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent behavior. The only mild gap is that 'bounded' is not elaborated, leaving the agent to guess what limits apply to the listing; overall the definition is adequate.

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%, so the single optional 'path' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any further parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names a clear resource ('bounded private-site grant metadata'), and adds a meaningful qualifier ('without exposing bearer tokens') that clarifies the tool's safety scope. It is readily distinguishable from the only close sibling, micro_private_grant_revoke, which performs a mutation.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of micro_private_grant_revoke or any other sibling, so the agent is left to infer usage purely from the name and general listing intent.

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