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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are newest-first, the version stack with per-version status and decisions constitutes the retained review history, and nothing is deleted.

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 tightly packed sentences with the primary action and ordering front-loaded, and parenthetical scoping kept brief. The em-dash aside on review history is dense but earns its place by clarifying retention.

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?

With an output schema, full schema coverage, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining essentials: ordering, scoping intent, and retention behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 the schema already documents after, limit, projectId, and composeJobId including cursor semantics and clamping. The description slightly enriches composeJobId/projectId intent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List checkpoint packets') plus a result ordering ('newest-first'), and the scoping parameters make clear this is a collection query rather than a single fetch. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling get_checkpoint 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 explains the two meaningful use contexts: composeJobId for a single run's v1→vN gate history, projectId for everything reviewable in a project. It never explicitly contrasts with get_checkpoint or states when listing is unnecessary, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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