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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses what is returned (side under listing.type, a came-forward count, a waiting count, a ready-to-read sentence), explicitly bounds the tool's knowledge ("those two counts are the whole of what this tool knows about those people"), and adds a presentation rule. It stops short of stating read-only status, result-size/pagination behavior, or ordering, but the scope-boundary disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences each carry load (return shape, scope limit, routing). It is on the verbose, narrative side with voice-heavy phrasing, but no sentence is truly disposable.

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 and no annotations exist, so the description must explain return values — and it does, covering the type field, the two counts, and the ready sentence, while deferring other data to check_in. Minor gaps remain (pagination, ordering, read-only status), keeping it just under fully complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter guidance to add or omit.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource (list intents) and nails the scope: the human's own wants and haves plus their lifecycle states. It further distinguishes itself from sibling check_in by stating which data lives here (counts) versus there (messages, figures, turn-ownership). An agent can tell it apart from every sibling 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?

It gives an explicit routing rule against a named alternative: answer "has anyone turned up?" from here, and anything past that from check_in. The dividing line between the two tools is stated, not inferred, which is exactly what a routing decision needs.

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