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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to restate that this is read-only. The description adds value by naming the exact API endpoint and the response envelope ({ valid, page_stats, data:[...] }), which is useful since there is no output schema. It does not explain page_stats or pagination behavior, but the annotation lowers the bar for behavioral disclosure.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second provides the endpoint and return shape. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It provides the response envelope despite lacking an output schema, though it could have briefly explained the meaning of page_stats or noted that results are paginated to be fully complete.

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%, so both parameters (_page and params) are documented in the schema. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, such as examples or the effect of params on filtering, which keeps it at the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('reusable content snippets'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and separates it from sibling list tools like list_tags or list_glossary_terms. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from a same-resource alternative, but the resource name and endpoint make the intent unambiguous.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus other list_* tools or alternatives. The description does not mention filtering, pagination strategy, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the resource name.

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