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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating what each returned offer contains (text it applies to, before, after, why, supporting reasons with cards) — meaningful content context for a tool with no output schema.

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?

The whole definition is a single sprawling run-on sentence stuffed with quoted fragments and neologisms, making it hard to parse and not front-loaded. The one operationally important clause ('The open ones by default; all: true...') is buried mid-stream rather than leading.

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 two-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what a returned offer looks like and the default filtering behavior. It is incomplete on the `limit` parameter and on pagination/ordering, which an agent would need to call it precisely.

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 only 50%: `all` is documented in the schema and the description merely restates it, while `limit` is undefined in both the schema and the description. The agent is given no semantics at all for the limit parameter, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource — the text changes Tommo offered for this workspace's texts, with the underlying repeated-reason filter called out. It is distinguishable from the decision siblings (take/refuse) it alludes to. The idiosyncratic vocabulary («How it writes», 'Tommo', 'cards') makes the resource harder to pin down than it needs to be, but the core purpose is clear.

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 states the default scope ('the open ones by default') and the flag that widens it ('all: true lists the decided ones too'), which is genuine routing guidance for the `all` param. However, it never names the sibling tools (take_a_text_change, refuse_a_text_change) an agent should use once it has identified an offer, so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance is only implied.

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