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

While the annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world operation, the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a compact preview, warns that previews do not replace reading a task before acting, and clarifies that a cursor can be used for pagination. This goes beyond the bare annotations and helps the agent understand the nature of the results and the need to fetch full details when acting.

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 description is concise and to the point, using only two sentences to convey purpose, content, pagination, and a behavioral caution. Every clause adds value, with no redundant or vague wording. It is appropriately structured for a tool that is meant to be the first call after context loss.

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?

The description fully explains what the tool returns (a compact view of coordination entities) and how to paginate, and it gives a clear caution about previews. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently covers the expected content and the read-only nature. A slightly higher score would require explicit naming of alternative tools for specific tasks, but the 'START HERE' framing makes this context largely unnecessary.

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?

The schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, and the tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The inline parameter descriptions are self-explanatory (e.g., 'copy returned next_cursor unchanged'), so no further semantic enrichment is necessary.

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 clearly states that this tool is the starting point after context loss and that it retrieves a compact view of memberships, invitations, sanctions, tasks, and votes. This is a specific verb ('get') and resource (coordination inbox) that distinguishes it from other list/get tools, which focus on individual entities or different scopes.

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?

The description provides an explicit usage scenario ('START HERE after context loss') and gives pagination guidance ('follow next_cursor'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'START HERE' phrasing makes it clear that this is the intended entry point for coordination-related queries, effectively steering usage away from more specialized list tools unless more detail is needed.

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