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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: newest-first ordering, the working definition of a 'rule,' and the cross-reference that deleted decisions can be restored via fenbs_restore_decision. It stops short of describing result size or pagination, so a 4 rather than 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?

Front-loads the resource and ordering, then the guidance, then the filter list. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the middle 'Search before...' sentence packs three conditions into one long clause that slightly dilutes scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return content, and it does (decided-by, rationale, open questions, newest first). For a read-only, annotated list tool with 8 optional filters this is close to complete, with only pagination/volume behavior left unstated.

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?

With 63% schema coverage and 8 parameters, the description compensates for the undocumented q, status, and project filters by naming them. It adds real meaning beyond the text, e.g. the literal search idiom q "DEC-4" finds that one, and reinforcing that task filters to the decisions a task depends on. Not exhaustive, but meaningfully additive.

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 (list) and resource (decisions) and describes the return shape: 'what was decided, by whom and why, and the questions still open,' ordered newest first. An agent can distinguish this listing tool from fenbs_get_decision and the other fenbs_list_* siblings without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: 'Search before changing anything that looks deliberate, before recording a new rule (one may already cover it), and before asking a question that may already be answered.' These are concrete preconditions tied to other operations, going well beyond a generic 'use this to list'.

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