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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context by defining 'stale' as past `stale_after`, but it says nothing about result volume, ordering, or whether counts are returned. Annotations do most of the work here.

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 compact clause that front-loads the categories and ends with the scope. Nothing is wasteful, though the fragment form costs some readability compared to a complete sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the sole parameter is fully covered. What's still missing is a plain statement of the action and any indication of result shape (flat list vs. grouped by status), which matters for an agent deciding when to call it.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains slugs vs. names and that omission means all trees. The description's 'across every tree or some' only echoes the optionality already documented, adding no new syntax or edge-case guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but it does enumerate the exact concept states the tool surfaces (stale, draft, unverified, deprecated) and the scope (every tree or a subset). An agent can infer this is a read-only listing of concepts needing attention, but nothing explicitly says what the tool does or how it differs from search_concepts or get_inventory.

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?

'Across every tree or some' hints at the optional filtering, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus search_concepts or get_concept, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the parameter shape.

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