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 material context the annotations do not: the OAuth/scoped-token authentication requirement and the fact that results are workspace-scoped and include aggregate counts.

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, zero filler, with the core behavior front-loaded and the auth prerequisite appended. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description does say what data comes back (roles plus candidate counts and review progress). However, it leaves pagination behavior and the 'open' status definition unaddressed, and it does not sharpen the boundary against list_roles, so gaps remain.

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 33% — workspaceId is documented, but limit and offset carry no textual description, only defaults and min/max constraints. The description never mentions pagination, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on two of three parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List open roles in this workspace' plus the returned facets (candidate counts, review progress). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearby list_roles or list_review_inbox siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'your review progress,' which suggests a reviewer workflow context. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of list_roles (all roles) or list_review_inbox, so the agent must infer the distinction from sibling names.

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