List entitlements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results come newest-first and paging is a cursor hand-off (`next_cursor` → `cursor`). It still says nothing about total counts, empty results, or truncation, so it is useful but not rich.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the pagination mechanic front-loaded in the second sentence. Brevity is near-optimal, though the first sentence is pure redundancy with the name.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey the shape of returned entitlements, but it never does. Annotations and a fully documented schema cover safety and inputs, so the definition is callable, but the agent cannot predict what an entitlement record contains or how filters interact.

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% and each parameter is documented in the schema, so this is the baseline. The description only reinforces the `cursor` semantics that the schema already states ("`next_cursor` from the previous page") and adds no detail on `product`, `customer`, or `subscription` filtering or whether they combine.

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?

"List entitlements" restates the tool name and title verbatim, so the first sentence adds no information. The second sentence describes ordering and pagination behavior rather than what entitlements are or what scope they are listed in, leaving the agent unable to distinguish this from `check_entitlement` or `list_credit_usage`.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus `check_entitlement` (single lookup) or `list_credit_usage`, and no mention of whether filters must be combined or which one to pick. Usage is only implied by the tool name; there are no exclusions or context cues.

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