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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: no auth needed, newest-first ordering, a 100-item ceiling, and that private evidence and hidden prompts are omitted from results. The data-scope exclusion is especially valuable and is not derivable from any structured field.

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 with the resource, ordering and cap front-loaded, followed by routing guidance and data-scope caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, limit, auth, and what is excluded. Only the shape of individual entries is unspecified, which is a minor gap given no output schema forces it.

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 100% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (1–100, default 25). The description restates the cap and default but adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("List recent public Hourkeeper decisions") plus ordering ("newest first") and a hard cap ("capped at 100 (default 25)"). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling inspect_hourkeeper_reasoning, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it: use this list tool for summaries, go to inspect_hourkeeper_reasoning with a returned decision_id for one decision's details. It also states the precondition ("No authentication required"), leaving nothing to inference.

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