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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lowered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them, notably the own_goal flag distinguishing workspace-authored versus system-authored goal text, and the meaning of autonomy_threshold as cards filed before autonomous sending.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opening with the core resource, with no filler. It is dense with nested parentheticals ('the workspace's own words, or ours when it wrote none — own_goal says which'), which slightly burdens reading but every clause carries information.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does: goal plus own_goal flag, autonomy_threshold, and acts with their words and settings. For a two-param read tool with full annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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% – both slugs are documented and told to come from list_tommos. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, so the schema carries the load and baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('one job of a tommo') and enumerates exactly what it returns: the goal, the autonomy_threshold cards, and each act with words and settings. This separates it from list-oriented siblings, though it never names which sibling to use instead.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing hint is implicit: the schema's 'from list_tommos' tells the agent where the slugs come from, and calling out 'each of its acts' faintly implies reading a whole job rather than one act. That is not stated guidance.

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