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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a meaningful business rule (a channel without an APPROVED limit cannot state cause/ETA/workaround or an invented audience), but it does not disclose pagination, scope, or return behavior beyond that.

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 with no filler; the core operation is front-loaded before the domain rule. Appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though the second sentence leans toward domain color rather than operational detail.

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 values need not be described. However, the description omits any parameter explanation and any when-to-use routing, leaving an agent with the operation but not the invocation details.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about boardId or includeRetired. With two parameters, one required UUID and one defaulted boolean, the description leaves both entirely uninterpreted, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read statement limits'), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from sibling list/read tools like list_approved_statements or list_approved_causes, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 explains the domain consequences of a missing APPROVED limit but gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as list_approved_statements, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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