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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that only published resources are listed, the sort order, the returned fields, and that the internal storage key is never exposed—a meaningful privacy/security behavior. It could add auth requirements or pagination caveats, but the provided details are substantial.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, ordering, filters, return fields, and a note about hidden internal keys. Every sentence contributes, with no redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, ordering, filters, and a security behavior. It could mention explicit pagination behavior or how drafts are handled, but it is sufficiently complete for agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 60% (limit, offset, folder_id have descriptions). The description reinforces that folder_id, resource_type, and access_level are filters but doesn't add constraints beyond schema enums. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the two undocumented parameters.

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 action ('List'), the resource type ('published resources'), the scope ('in the authenticated community'), and ordering ('newest first'). It also names the filtering dimensions, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_courses or list_events.

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 provides clear usage context: use this to list published resources, optionally filtered by folder_id, resource_type, or access_level. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or when-not conditions, but the scope is unambiguous relative to the sibling set.

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