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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: 'summary always covers the full graded corpus... regardless of grade, limit, or offset', which informs agents about side-effects and data scoping. No contradictions.

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 tool's purpose and sorting. Every sentence provides essential behavioral or parameter context without redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given parameter count (3), full schema coverage, and existing output schema (not shown but noted), the description covers pagination logic, grade filtering, and summary behavior. No missing context needed for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema covers parameters completely (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining behavior: 'default limit 25, capped at 100 per call', 'grade restricts to one letter', and the special summary behavior. This goes beyond parameter descriptions in 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 clearly states the tool returns 'Servers with a published polygraph grade, sorted A-first then by ref', specifying the verb (list), resource (servers), and sorting. It distinguishes from siblings check_server and request_grade which focus on individual servers or requesting grades.

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?

The description explains behavior (pagination, grade filter, summary) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., when you need a full list vs. checking a single server). Usage context is implied but alternatives are not mentioned.

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