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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description explains scoping behavior: untriaged ideas are operator-scoped, triaged ideas belong to the current company, and include_promoted controls whether Playbook-promoted ideas appear. This is meaningful behavioral context not carried by the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: three sentences deliver the core purpose, filter syntax/defaults, and sibling tool routing. No filler or redundant boilerplate is present.

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 read-only filtered list tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is complete. An agent knows when to use it, how to filter, what default behavior to expect, and which sibling tools handle capture and triage.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, status, companyId, and include_promoted. The prose mostly restates the status filter and default rather than adding new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the verb and resource precisely ('List Ideas') and immediately scopes the operation into untriaged (new/parked) vs triaged buckets. It also names the companion tools capture_idea and triage_idea, making the purpose easy to distinguish from related idea actions.

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 an explicit trigger condition ('Use when you need to see captured Ideas') and names the complementary tools for creating and assigning ideas. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the routing guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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