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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: no note on ordering, whether only future/active pauses appear, or what a pause record contains. The one useful signal, that the list can be scoped to a supplement, is marginal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb and resource come first and the qualifier follows. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that cost is captured in other dimensions rather than structure.

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?

For a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter, read-only listing with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits whether "planned" excludes elapsed or cancelled pauses, which is the one piece of context an agent would plausibly need to interpret results correctly.

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% and supplementId has no description in the schema, so the description carries real weight here by explaining that the parameter is an optional supplement filter rather than a required selector. It does not clarify the expected identifier format (ID vs name), which is the remaining ambiguity.

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 ("List") and resource ("planned intake pauses") plus an optional scope, so an agent can distinguish it from the mutation siblings stackwell_set_supplement_pause / stackwell_remove_supplement_pause by verb alone. It never names those siblings or explains how the listing relates to them, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

"Optionally for one supplement" implies when to pass the filter, and the read-only listing intent is clear from the verb. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as get_supplement_stack or get_active_plan, and no statement about whether past/inactive pauses are included.

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