List recent taps

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real value: newest-first ordering, the default one-hour window, and an auth constraint ('Reads the taps export (an owner's or admin's key)') that no annotation conveys. The only redundancy is the leading 'Read-only.', which restates readOnlyHint.

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?

The sentence is dense but front-loaded: scope and ordering come first, the field enumeration in the middle, use case and access requirement at the end. The parenthetical field list is long but justified because there is no output schema; the only wasted token is the redundant 'Read-only.' opener.

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 carries the return-shape burden well by listing the fields and their meaning (sent_to, match_method, open_kind). Combined with the default window and key-permission note, an agent can call it correctly; only a pointer to sibling tools for narrower or broader queries is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the implicit default window ('the last hour') that the schema leaves unstated for `from`, plus the newest-first ordering that governs how `limit` and the time bounds are consumed. It says nothing extra about `slug` or boundary inclusivity beyond the schema.

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 precisely ('Recent individual taps, newest first') and enumerates the per-tap fields returned (when, link, platform, channel, sent_to, opened_at, open_kind, installed_at, match_method), so an agent knows exactly what the payload holds. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with near-neighbors like list_events or trace_tap, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Use it to check that a test tap was recorded and what happened to it' gives a concrete triggering scenario, and 'Default: the last hour' sets the default window expectation. It does not name alternatives (e.g., trace_tap for a single tap's journey, list_events for broader events) or state when not to use it.

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