List distributions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond them — only *approved* distributions are returned, plus a hint at the returned fields — but says nothing about volume, pagination, ordering or result caps for a date-range query.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no filler, and the scoping constraint appears first. It is a noun fragment rather than a sentence with an explicit verb, which slightly weakens dispatch clarity but wastes no words.

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?

For a simple three-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and the filter applied. It is still thin on the things an agent would need to call it confidently: pagination/volume expectations and disambiguation from the payment-list sibling.

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%, with each parameter documented (issuerId sourced from list_issuers, YYYY-MM-DD date patterns), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description confirms the from/to pair defines a record-date range but adds no semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 names the resource (distributions), the scoping dimension (record-date range) and the payload (dates, DRP details, components), and 'Approved' narrows the result set. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_distribution_payment_list, so an agent still has to guess which to use for payment-level data.

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: the required record-date range plus issuerId suggests "use when you need distributions for an issuer over a period". There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how this differs from get_distribution_payment_list, and no statement of prerequisites beyond what the schema already says.

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