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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful payload context beyond the annotations: each item ships with a ready draft and a one-line rationale, and the list mirrors the todo page. It does not discuss ordering or pagination behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the list contains and ending with the direct handoff to act_on_todo. The em-dash enumeration is informative rather than filler, though the 'everything waiting for the user's yes' opener is slightly ornamental.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work of describing item shape (draft plus one-line reason) and source (same as the todo page). Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only ordering and pagination semantics are 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with an enum on 'kind' and a bounded default for 'limit', so the schema carries parameter documentation. The description's examples loosely hint at the kinds available (post idea, connection, comments, messages, reviews) but never mentions the kind filter or limit parameter explicitly, adding little beyond the schema.

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 conveys a specific resource — the queue of pending items awaiting the user's approval — and enumerates concrete item types (post idea from a spike, connection to fix, comments, messages, reviews). The framing is metaphorical ('waiting for the user's yes') rather than a clean verb+resource statement, but an agent can still distinguish this from siblings like list_comments or list_reviews.

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 explicitly points to the follow-up tool: 'Use act_on_todo to accept or dismiss,' which routes the agent correctly for the next step. It gives clear context for when to call it (to see what needs approval) but states no exclusions or conditions where another list tool would be preferred.

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