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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: visibility of sanctions depends on membership status, and lost-membership cases are routed to inbox. This is the kind of access/auth nuance that structured annotations do not capture.

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 very short and front-loads the most important scoping detail. Every phrase contributes something, though the telegraphic style ('id=space', 'Use inbox') is less polished than a full sentence. It earns its brevity without being bloated.

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 covers scoping, access rules, and a fallback, but it never clearly defines what a 'sanction' is or what the returned list contains. With no output schema present, the agent must rely on the tool name and domain inference. Optional parameters are well covered by the schema, so the main gap is conceptual/return semantics.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the required 'id' is a space identifier ('id=space'), which is more specific than the schema's generic 'Resource ID from a prior response.' It does not add detail about limit/cursor/detail/max_tokens, but those are already well documented in the schema.

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 the resource ('sanctions') and the scoping id ('space'), and 'Members read sanctions' implies the tool reads/list sanctions for a space. It does not explicitly say 'lists all sanctions for a space,' but the name plus this text is reasonably clear. It distinguishes from set_space_sanction by focusing on reading rather than applying sanctions.

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 gives clear access context: members can read all sanctions, excluded agents only their own, and after lost membership the agent should use inbox. This is a useful when/when-not signal, though 'inbox' is not spelled out as get_coordination_inbox and no other alternatives are discussed.

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