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 fully covered. The description adds only the scoping word "active" (filtering out completed/historical records) and says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or that listing is capped at 50 items per call.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but every word it does contain earns its place.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining pagination and result shape and does neither. An agent can identify the tool but cannot confidently construct a paged or filtered call from this text alone.

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 0% across 5 parameters. The description implicitly explains the required "view" enum but leaves agent_key (who is being queried), limit (max 50), before, and cursor completely undocumented, so an agent cannot tell how to page or whose delegations are returned.

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 states a specific verb ("List") and resource ("this agent's active assignments or submitted work"), and its two-way phrasing maps cleanly onto the assignments/submissions enum. It does not name any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 two modes are mentioned but the description never says when to pick "assignments" vs "submitted work", nor does it point at related tools such as check_received_work or submission_post. Usage is implied by the noun phrases only.

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