List Operations

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so 'No financial writes' mostly restates them. The description does add genuine context: outcomes are 'durable' (persisted, retrievable after the fact) and tenant-scoped. It omits ordering, retention, pagination, and what an operation record contains.

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 the core purpose front-loaded, followed by filtering behavior. 'No financial writes' is close to redundant against the readOnly annotation but still serves as a fast safety signal, so nothing is wasted enough to penalize.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. What's missing is the conceptual anchor: which multi-step operations this lists and how an agent would know one is pending — a meaningful gap in a 47-tool budget-management server.

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 0% — budgetId has no description in the schema — so the description carries the burden and does so well: omission means all budgets, presence means exact-match filter. It doesn't clarify the ID format or whether partial/multiple IDs are accepted, which is why it's not a 5.

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 ('Read') and resource ('durable multi-step operation outcomes') scoped to the authenticated tenant, which is far more informative than the name alone. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, but 'operations' is distinct enough from the budgets/transactions/payees listing tools.

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 explains the two calling modes (omit budgetId for all budgets, or pass an exact ID), which is effectively usage guidance for the single parameter. However, it never says when an agent should reach for this tool versus sibling read tools, nor what triggers the existence of an 'operation'.

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