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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the result contents (version, who agreed, when) and a real coverage limitation ('holds only what people agreed to in Alcoven; what was settled elsewhere may be written only in the documents'). That limitation is exactly the kind of caveat annotations cannot express.

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, front-loaded with the core payload and ending with a usage cue; little waste. The opening clause is slightly convoluted and the final sentence is a fragment, but both carry information.

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?

With an output schema covering return shape and full annotation coverage of the safety profile, the description need only add scope and intent — which it does, including the Alcoven-only data boundary and the planned-change review scenario. Only the sibling-routing gap keeps it short of complete.

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 'project' and 'about' are already documented, but the description still adds semantics for 'about' — it narrows the search to agreed lines on one subject rather than whole documents, which is not evident from the schema's example-only text.

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 specifies the resource concretely: agreement documents with their version, who agreed and when, plus line-level agreement lookup when 'about' is supplied. It is clear what you get back, but the opening 'Whether something was decided, or what people agree on' is indirect and never names a distinguishing sibling like history or what_changed.

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?

One concrete use case is given — 'For checking a planned change against what people agreed' — and the conditional behavior of 'about' is spelled out. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over history, what_changed, read, or search, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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