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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, but the description adds useful context beyond it: it enumerates the returned data (tool, description, risk, cluster/session, expiry, failure count, bill of materials) and clarifies that `decide_pending_action` performs the write. It does not disclose pagination or result-volume limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and every clause contributes needed information. The first sentence is dense with a long list of return values, but the structure remains readable and the supporting sentences are efficient.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned, when to invoke it, and how it relates to the decision sibling. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description mentions 'across the organisation' but does not add syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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-and-resource phrase ('AI actions currently parked for a human decision across the organisation') and explicitly states the sibling relationship with `decide_pending_action` ('settles one'). An agent can distinguish this listing tool from the decision tool without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit use case ('Use this when a user asks what is waiting on them or why an AI session is stuck') and names the alternative action ('decide_pending_action settles one'). The when-to-use and what-to-use-instead are both directly stated.

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