List rooms

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the auth requirement ('any AskOne API token can call it') and the pagination loop. It stops short of describing response shape beyond the listed fields, but the added auth and paging context is real value.

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?

Front-loads the action and result fields, then adds usage and pagination in separate, purposeful sentences. Every sentence earns its place, though it is somewhat densely packed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields and counts, and it also covers auth, pagination and the sibling contrast. For a low-complexity two-parameter list tool this is complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning for cursor by spelling out the loop ('call again with cursor set to the returned next_cursor until next_cursor is null'), which goes slightly beyond the schema's terse cursor description.

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 ('List your organization's rooms') plus the ordering ('newest first') and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from create_room, open_room, close_room and the get_* siblings 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?

Explicitly states the use case ('Use it to find the code the room tools take') and contrasts with the alternative ('create_room needs none and returns a new room's code'), and gives the pagination procedure. Nothing is left to inference.

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