List Federation Issuers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the required organization-admin role, the acceptable credential types (user session or OAuth full_access), and the explicit exclusion of API keys and workload tokens.

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, front-loaded with the action and return shape, followed by the access constraint. Nothing is padded, though the credential sentence runs slightly long relative to its value.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description explains the return shape and auth requirements well. It still leaves gaps on the organization parameter semantics and on pagination or result-size behavior, which matter for a "list all" endpoint.

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% for the single required organization parameter, so the description carries the burden of explaining it and does not. It never says whether organization is a name, slug, or ID, nor that it scopes the listing to that org.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List all federation issuers") and adds the return shape ("array of complete objects with configuration, IDs and timestamps"). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get-federation-issuer, though "List all" versus a singular get is reasonably implied.

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 implied by the list semantics and the tool is constrained by an organization parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance such as "use get-federation-issuer to fetch a single issuer" or "use list-federation-rules for its rules". The access restrictions given are auth preconditions rather than selection guidance.

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