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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds context instead: results are 'in brief' rather than full records, and pagination is cursor-based, newest-first. It does not mention rate limits, error cases, or what happens when the cursor is stale.

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?

Purpose, pagination and filtering are front-loaded in the first two sentences and the density is high. The closing sentence about how to phrase ACTs to the Principal (naming convention, 'without act_' id formatting) is useful but is presentation guidance rather than tool behavior, diluting focus.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of previewing the return contents ('what each is, where it stands, and when its review ends') and the ordering. It stops short of saying where the agent obtains the id needed for 'after' (presumably each brief's id), which is a small but real gap for a cursor 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the limit default of 50 and state examples. The description reinforces state semantics with business meaning ('SUBMITTED for work waiting on your review') and cursor usage, but leaves 'key' and 'limit' untouched — a modest value-add over the schema, not a substitute.

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 and resource ('Your Principal's ACTs... as GET /api/v1/acts'), plus ordering ('newest first') and output shape ('each in brief'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_act by routing whole-record reads there.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use conditions for each optional parameter: 'Give state to see one state... and after to read on from the last id you saw', and names the alternative tool for full detail ('Read one whole with get_act'). The choice between this and get_act is unambiguous.

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