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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only: returns suggestion inbox items and IDs ... without changing documents', which clearly communicates that the operation has no side effects. This aligns perfectly with the readOnlyHint annotation and provides the agent with a strong guarantee of safety.

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 description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the purpose, safety, and typical usage without extraneous information. It is well-structured and easily parseable, making it efficient for an agent to digest.

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?

The description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the fact that it is read-only, and how the results will be used (for later apply/discard/snooze). It does not include an output schema, but for a straightforward list operation, the information provided is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and invoke it correctly.

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?

All four parameters have descriptive names and descriptions. The status parameter explicitly lists accepted values (pending default, applied, discarded), which goes beyond a basic type definition. The space_id description includes a useful instruction to call list-spaces first, and limit/batch_id are self-explanatory. Schema coverage is 100% with meaningful additional context.

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 tool's purpose: reviewing documentation suggestions for a Space. It specifies the action (review/list) and the resource (suggestions for a Space). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by noting that it returns items and IDs for later apply/discard/snooze actions, which sets it apart from siblings like count-space-suggestions or bulk-manage-space-suggestions.

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 a direct usage trigger: 'Use this when the user wants to review...'. It implicitly differentiates from alternatives by highlighting the returned items and IDs for later actions, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to similar list/count tools. This leaves a slight gap in explicit guidance.

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