list_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful domain scope and the open-ended 'writable domains when present in discovery' caveat, but says nothing about pagination limits, ordering guarantees, or result shape.

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 tight fragments, front-loaded with the core capability, then the domain list, then the disambiguation hint. No padding, though the 'writable domains when present in discovery' clause is a bit elliptical.

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 need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing for a paged search endpoint: how skip/page_size interact, ordering behavior, and how results relate to the other find_* tools.

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% across 6 params, so the burden falls on the description. It does add real value by enumerating valid values for the required 'resource' parameter (which has no enum in the schema), but skip, page_size, term, sort_by and sort_by_desc are left entirely unexplained.

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 concrete verb+resource ('search/page a curated collection') and enumerates the actual collections covered (customers, suppliers, sales_invoices, etc.), which tells an agent exactly what is reachable. It also differentiates from one sibling by contrasting bank_accounts with bank_balances, though it does not distinguish itself from find_records or get_record.

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?

Usage is only implied by the domain list plus one explicit routing hint ('use bank_balances for snapshot balances'). There is no guidance on when this tool beats find_records/get_record, nor on prerequisites, even though several sibling lookup tools overlap.

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