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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it drops stale hosts and blocked rows without a real ask, and scopes results to 'THIS operator's' sessions. This is non-obvious hygiene behavior an agent needs to know.

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 sentences, front-loaded with scope and behavioral filtering, and usage guidance folded in efficiently. Minor jargon like 'stale hosts' and 'real ask' costs a little clarity, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the returned fields (status, goal, ask), explains hygiene filtering, and gives concrete usage triggers. Remaining gaps such as sort order or exact response shape are minor for a read-only list tool with well-documented parameters.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds useful interpretation for needs_me ('what needs me?', blocked only), but provides no extra meaning for limit, companyId, or include_stale beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List THIS operator's coding/builder sessions') and names the contained fields (status, goal, ask). It also ties the tool to the create_attention_directive workflow, which helps distinguish it from related attention tools.

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 gives clear conditions: use needs_me=true for 'what needs me?' (blocked only) and use before create_attention_directive or when attending a blocked session. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative list tools, but the context is concrete enough.

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