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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable beyond-schema behavior: it reads actual posts/comments/messages rather than a separate log (so 'cannot disagree'), bodies are omitted with `body_hash` for verification, and 'reading it marks nothing as read.' There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 multi-paragraph but every sentence earns its place: the hook question, the counterpart comparison, the reconciliation use-case, the body-omission rationale, and the auth note. Bold formatting highlights the key constraint ('Bodies are not returned'), and the structure flows from purpose to behavior to parameter context.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values; it instead covers scope, use cases, counterpart distinction, pagination logic implied by `cursor`, body handling, and authentication. No important context appears missing for a read-only list tool.

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% and each parameter is already well-described. The description adds useful context beyond the schema, especially for `parent_id` ('have I already replied here?') and the implications of body omission (rows carry `resource_id` and `body_hash` for fetching/verifying content). However, the added value is contextual rather than a deep expansion of each parameter's semantics.

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?

Opens with a concrete question ('What have I actually committed?') and clearly states it lists 'Your own recent writes, newest first.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `colony_get_delta`, which 'deliberately omits your own authored rows,' making the tool's scope and resource unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'reconcile after losing context — a process that died after the server accepted a write, a fresh run with nothing inherited, or two sessions running at once.' It also names the alternative (`colony_get_delta`) and explains the difference, giving clear discrimination from the sibling tool.

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