list_overlays

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the return shape ('compact preset choices and editor links') and the cursor-based pagination contract. It does not say whether results are exhaustive or bounded by default.

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 sentences, no filler: identification first, then return content, then the pagination instruction. Each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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 correctly compensates by describing what comes back and how to page. Five parameters with zero coverage means a gap remains around free_only and the semantics of query, but for a read-only listing tool this is largely sufficient.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps reasonably onto query/family/niche ('by topic, family or niche') and explains cursor usage well, but leaves free_only entirely undocumented and never clarifies filter combination or defaults.

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 a specific resource (animated overlays) and the discovery dimensions (topic, family, niche), and it distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_overlay by framing itself as returning 'compact preset choices and editor links'. It never explicitly contrasts with get_overlay, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete guidance on pagination ('Reuse the same filters and pass the returned next_cursor as cursor'), which is genuinely useful. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_overlay, or any exclusion such as when not to use it, leaving the discovery-vs-fetch choice implied.

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