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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so meaningfully: it discloses the newest-first ordering and the precedence rule for resolving projectName. It doesn't state read-only semantics, errors, or pagination, but for a simple list tool the most important behavior is covered.

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 two sentences with no filler; the main action and ordering are front-loaded, and the additional config-precedence detail earns its place. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is listed, ordering, and project resolution. It omits return format and pagination, but those are less critical for such a simple operation.

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?

The input schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains that projectName refers to a project and adds a specific precedence rule involving a workspace config file, which is genuine value beyond the bare schema. It could be more explicit about whether projectName is required, but there is only one optional parameter.

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 clearly specifies a concrete action and resource: 'List the decision log of a project' with ordering 'newest first'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_decision and other list_* operations, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast an alternative.

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 useful context about project selection (preferring a workspace config's projectName over the API key's default), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The use case is largely implied by the name and first sentence.

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