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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It adds the default ordering ('most-asked first'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or the shape of each returned gap.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the identity of the resource front-loaded and the ordering detail appended where it matters. Nothing could be cut without losing substance.

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?

Given only two params, 100% schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool is and how results are ordered. The remaining gap is that with no output schema, it never sketches what a returned gap looks like or whether results are paginated.

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%: productId's source (from list_products) and status's default ('new', unhandled gaps) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 the questions the support agent could not answer') plus the business meaning ('backlog of articles that need writing') and default ordering. This distinguishes it from generic listing siblings like list_articles or list_conversations 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?

The framing as a 'backlog of articles that need writing' implies this is the tool for content-gap triage, which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer it or what to do next (e.g. resolve_gap, dismiss_gap, draft_article_from_conversation), so the routing is left to inference.

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