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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context: the visibility scope ('the person can see') and the meaning of the derived 'fit' metric ('how far it sat from people the last time a study had both'). Pagination and result-size behavior are not mentioned.

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, front-loaded with scope and contents, with the action guidance last. The field list is dense and the parenthetical defining 'fit' is slightly convoluted, but nothing is wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so by enumerating name, version, people, status, runs, and fit. The single parameter is handled by the schema. Pagination or ordering behavior for a potentially long list is the only notable gap.

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% and the workspace parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to explain it. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Every synthetic panel the person can see') and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from prism_panels_get, prism_panels_create, and prism_panels_draft without opening any schema.

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?

'Reuse an existing panel before drafting a new one' gives a clear when-to-use rule that routes the agent to this tool before prism_panels_draft. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly or stating when-not to use it (e.g. when a single panel is already known), so it is clear context rather than full alternative coverage.

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