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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists records and shows trajectory, but does not mention read-only behavior, pagination semantics, date filtering effects, or what happens with no parameters. This is a gap for a list operation with five optional parameters.

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 very brief—two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action "List your decision records" is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a small amount of contextual flavor without bloating the definition.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and five optional parameters, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the response looks like, how the date range (from/to) works, whether ordering is applied, or how pagination is intended to be used. An agent would need to infer much of this from the schema alone.

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 all five parameters have individual descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable per the baseline of 3 when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List your decision records." This distinguishes it from the sibling get_decision by implying a plural collection operation, and the added "trajectory" imagery reinforces the idea of reviewing history. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_decision or list_classifications. The phrase "See the trajectory you have built so far" mildly implies a review/history use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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