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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive. The description adds the crucial behavioral detail that proposals can't be approved/rejected here and points to where they can, plus the ordering (newest first).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ordering, then return fields, then a behavioral boundary. No 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?

No output schema, so describing returned fields is valuable. It covers ordering, status behavior, and action limitations. Could mention default scope details or pagination, but it's sufficient for a 2-parameter read 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 baseline is 3. The description's 'proposed or completed' loosely maps to the status enum, but the schema already explains all values and defaults. Little added meaning.

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 (list) and resource (proposed/completed bookkeeping changes), plus ordering. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_loops or get_changes by naming the exact object returned.

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?

Explains the two statuses visible (proposed or completed) and that pending ones can be acted on elsewhere. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the read-only note steers usage.

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