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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly describes the return payload (primary move, needs_you, running count, work_units) and notes the speech-safe nature and how to handle spoken labels. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the 'get' prefix and return-focused wording imply a non-mutating operation. It lacks discussion of errors or permissions but is otherwise transparent about behavior.

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 dense but well-structured: it opens with a concise purpose sentence, then lists components, then gives usage triggers and output handling. No wasted words; each sentence serves a purpose. Slightly long but appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains return values: it enumerates the four components and provides details on how to interpret them (e.g., 'Speak spoken / spoken_label / speak_first' and matching PR titles to work_units fields). It also covers the optional parameter behavior. Given all this, the description is complete for effective use without additional context.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that companyId controls the featured card selection ('when companyId given, else top host that needs you') and that omitting it yields a host-only board. It also clarifies the alias company_id. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, adding actionable context.

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's purpose: a speech-safe quest log strip that returns primary next move, needs_you hosts, running host count, and work_units. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns data from the Quest Work rail and advises against inventing SPA state, making its scope 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?

Explicitly lists operator asks like 'what's next', 'what's in Quest Log', 'what needs me', and 'where is PR N' as triggers, and signals when to use it 'instead of inventing SPA state'. It also explains the companyId parameter's effect, giving clear when/why guidance.

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