List collections

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 by noting the call is free (no credits consumed) and that results include photo/face/selfie counts. It still says nothing about result ordering or total-count/paging metadata, which is the remaining gap.

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 with no waste: scope first, return contents second, capabilities and cost last. Nothing to trim.

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, zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, payload contents, filtering and cost adequately. Only result ordering and whether a total count is returned are left unstated.

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%, so every parameter (limit, query, offset, status) is already documented, and the description only echoes "substring search and paging." It notably does not say which field the query matches (the schema says collection id), leaving a mild ambiguity rather than adding meaning.

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 the face collections on this SightRadar account") and even names what each row carries (photo, face and selfie counts). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_collection, so an agent must infer the plural/singular split, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

"Supports substring search and paging" implies this is the browse/enumerate entry point versus get_collection for a single record, but that alternative is never named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. Usage is deducible rather than stated.

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