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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the exclusion set (disabled, shadow, stale, inaccessible) and the caution 'Never treat classification as permission' disclose behavioral constraints not present in structured data.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with what the tool reads and following with scope exclusions and a caution. Sentences are varied but each carries information; only the 'Never treat classification as permission' line reads as slightly tacked-on.

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 list with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the exclusion semantics and retention behavior an agent needs. It falls short only on not clarifying the listing-vs-single-item boundary against suggestion_get.

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% and the single connection parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the connection parameter or its credential handling beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a verb (read) and describes the resource as 'private current semantic work items with evidence, versions, confidence and effective mode,' which implies a suggestions list but never uses the word 'suggestions' explicitly. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling suggestion_get, so an agent must infer the listing-vs-single-fetch split from the name alone.

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 clause 'Review pending/accepted items; resolved outcomes are retained' implies the tool's intended use context, but it never states when to call this versus suggestion_get or suggestion_resolve. Usage guidance is present but only implied.

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