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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not: the authorization requirement ('Requires a team key') and the shape of what is returned, which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, using a compact colon-delimited field list. It is slightly back-loaded in intent, opening with a noun phrase about return content rather than the action verb, but nothing is wasted.

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 listing tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations and whose two parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: listed fields and the team-key requirement. Only secondary details such as pagination, sorting, or result limits are absent.

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 (slug, status) are already fully documented by the schema, and the enum values listed in the description merely restate the schema's enum. No additional filter semantics or combination behavior is added, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: the review state of articles staged on this site, with an explicit field list (slug, title, status, review note, revision). It never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like cotal_list_posts (all posts) or cotal_get_my_post (a single post), so an agent must infer the 'my/staged' scope from the name alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the stated prerequisite 'Requires a team key,' which tells the agent a precondition for calling it. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over cotal_list_posts or cotal_get_my_post, and no when-not condition or alternative named.

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