list_mid_extension_contexts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds useful diagnostic context: it returns status and error_message, and a missing ACC Websocket Endpoint context explains 404 handshakes. It does not mention pagination, auth, or rate limits, but those are secondary here.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the specific resource and examples, followed by the troubleshooting rationale. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the key returned fields (status and error_message) and explains the diagnostic interpretation. The input filters are fully documented in the schema. Pagination behavior is only covered by the schema's limit default, so it is not fully complete but is adequate for this list tool.

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 all four optional filters (limit, status, extension, mid_server) are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add filter syntax or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("List MID Server extension contexts"), names the underlying table (ecc_agent_ext_context), gives concrete examples, and says what fields are returned. An agent can distinguish this from generic MID Server or ACC agent listing tools without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly establishes the primary use case: troubleshooting ACC listener setup, especially when agents get handshake 404s due to a missing "ACC Websocket Endpoint" context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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