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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description focuses on deeper semantics: that open entries carry a derived `lapsed` flag set from deadline passing. This is real behavioral context beyond structured fields, though it doesn't discuss response shape, ordering, or pagination beyond the cursor param.

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 opening sentence front-loads the resource definition, and the imperative "CONSULT BEFORE ACTING" follows immediately, which is well-structured. It is dense and somewhat run-on across a single long paragraph, but nearly every clause (species definitions, filter prescriptions, lapsed flag) carries usable 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?

For a 7-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the conceptual model, the high-value filters, and the primary consult-before-acting workflow, which is enough for correct invocation. It leaves the return shape and pagination behavior unstated, but annotations cover safety and the schema covers all parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine interpretive meaning to key filters — compassPageId is reframed as "every decision touching that workflow / system / person" and status=open is tied to "unsettled expectations awaiting evidence." It does not add semantics for q, cursor, origin, or workspace beyond what the schema provides.

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 states what the resource is ("the workspace's memory") and enumerates its species — decisions, lessons, observations — so an agent knows it lists Ledger entries. It is specific about content but never contrasts itself with the sibling read tools (ledger_entries_get, ledger_plan_list) or states the listing/pagination nature, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: "CONSULT BEFORE ACTING — before proposing a flow change, prompt edit, or process decision," and names the concrete filter to use (compassPageId). It further prescribes status=open for unsettled expectations and kind=lesson for settled team beliefs, with edge-case routing ("surface lapsed ones when the user asks what needs attention").

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