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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states a read operation, but offers no additional context about output format, pagination, error conditions, or authentication requirements beyond the schema. It is honest but minimal.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, making it maximally concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

For a simple, single-parameter list operation, the description adequately covers what the tool does and for whom. While it doesn't mention pagination or return format, these are conventional for list endpoints, and the absence of an output schema doesn't create critical gaps here.

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?

The schema already fully describes the sole parameter (apiKey) with 100% coverage, including its purpose and how to obtain it. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('theses') with a clear scope ('for the authenticated user'), distinguishing it from public exploration tools like explore_theses and mutation tools like create_thesis/update_thesis. This is a clear, precise statement.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'for the authenticated user,' indicating this returns the user's own theses, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. With siblings like explore_theses available, a more explicit pointer would improve this dimension.

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