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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable context beyond those: default scope, result contents, absence of a separate approval action, cursor-based pagination via nextCursor, and a security warning that CRM values are untrusted content. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with purpose and scope, then adds dense but relevant behavioral details: item contents, resolution path, pagination, and a security caveat. Every sentence contributes; nothing is filler.

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 carries the burden of explaining return content and does so well: evidence per fact, cohort/issues, terms to be recorded, report effect, and pagination. It also covers permissions and the resolution workflow, so an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool 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 description coverage is low (25%), but the description compensates for the key params: it explains what scope HELD and UNVERSIONED mean, identifies the default, and clarifies that nextCursor continues the scan. workspaceId has its own schema description; limit is adequately constrained by schema defaults and bounds.

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: list the commercial review queue. It precisely defines the population ('Deals whose legacy pricing the commercial migration holds for review') and the alternative scope (UNVERSIONED), so an agent knows exactly what it returns and how it differs from a generic deal list.

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 gives clear operational context: the default HELD scope, the UNVERSIONED alternative, the view permission limit, and the follow-up path via save_deal_commercials. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like get_commercial_review_record, but it does explain when this list is relevant and what to do next.

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