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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses useful behavioral traits: ordering ('oldest first'), comprehensive contents ('every entry... inputs, deliverables, questions, answers'), and access restriction ('only visible to its two parties'). This adds substantial context beyond the tool name.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Lists every entry'), then specifies types, ordering, and a visibility constraint. Every clause adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, the ordering, and the access restriction. It does not explicitly describe return format, but 'lists' implies a list output, and the tool's simplicity reduces the need for more detail.

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 description references 'a contract' connecting contract_id to the intended resource, but it does not add details about ID format or required format beyond the schema's string type. Since there is only one required parameter and schema coverage is 0%, the description provides minimal compensatory 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists every entry (inputs, deliverables, questions, answers) in a contract's workroom feed, oldest first. This is a specific action and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling write tools like workroom_post_input and workroom_ask_question.

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 implies usage when an agent needs to review the complete workroom thread for a given contract, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or define when not to use it. The 'only visible to its two parties' hints at access scope but not alternative-tool guidance.

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