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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds decision semantics absent from structured fields: REFUSED forbids substitutes and APPROVED makes sayOnly the sole permitted wording, which directly shapes what the agent should do with the result.

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?

Three sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core decision. The outcome semantics and channel note follow in logical order.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained. The description supplies the meaning of REFUSED/APPROVED and the channel limit behavior, though it leaves boardId unexplained.

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 0%, so the description has to carry parameter meaning. It explains channel's statement-limit enforcement and implies that proposal can be wording, cause, timeline, or workaround, matching the kind enum, but boardId is never described.

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?

Specific verb 'decide' plus the four proposal kinds and the 'approved set' object. An agent can distinguish this validator from list_* and save_* siblings that enumerate or persist approved items.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. The channel sentence hints at conditional behavior but doesn't tell the agent when to choose this tool over listing approved statements or checking limits separately.

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