List Functionalities

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 by structured data; the description adds nothing on top. It does not mention pagination behavior, default sort order, the meaning of 'include', or result volume - context that matters for a 23-parameter list endpoint.

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 words with no waste but severe under-specification; brevity here is a deficit, not a virtue, given the parameter surface. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), the tool exposes 23 undocumented parameters and the description provides zero coverage of any of them. For a paginated, heavily-filterable list endpoint this is completely inadequate.

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 23 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails entirely. It does not explain sort syntax, the include expansion field, page_size/page_number semantics, or the many filter_* variants (eq/not_eq/in/not_in, created_at ranges, cross-system ids like cortex/opslevel/backstage).

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_functionality (single-item retrieval) or other list_* tools. No prerequisites, no pagination advice, no exclusion criteria are stated.

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