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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the OAuth/scoped-token requirement and the definition of what counts as a disagreement, both of which affect interpretation of results. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result ordering.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and what the default filter is. The disagreement definition is slightly tangential to the sentence flow but is genuinely load-bearing semantics rather than filler.

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 six parameters, 17% schema coverage, no output schema and a paginated list result, the description should do more — pagination limits, ordering, and what the verdict-count fields contain are unaddressed. The auth note and default/disagreement explanations cover the essentials but not the whole calling contract.

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 only 17% — only workspaceId is documented in the schema — so the description has to compensate. It explains the default status (unreviewed) and gives meaning to disagreementOnly ("a yes or superstar and a no"), but says nothing about limit/offset paging, roleId, or the status enum values, leaving half the surface undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — list active evaluated candidates for a role — and enumerates the payload (your verdicts, team verdict counts, review progress). It is clearly a queue-listing tool, though it never names the overlapping siblings (list_review_inbox, list_candidate_reviews, list_reviewers), which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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?

"Defaults to candidates you have not reviewed" tells the agent the out-of-box behavior and the status enum makes the alternative modes discoverable, which implies when to use it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_review_inbox or list_candidate_reviews, and no prerequisites beyond the auth note.

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