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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that disabled, shadow, stale, and inaccessible suggestions are excluded, and advises 'Never treat classification as permission.' It also notes that resolved outcomes are retained, which is a behavioral nuance. However, it does not mention pagination, response format, or failure modes, which are not critical for a read-only list tool, but the behavioral disclosure is adequate.

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 two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. It then covers exclusions and usage notes without fluff. The phrase 'resolved outcomes are retained' is slightly ambiguous but still concise. Overall, it earns its place with no wasted words.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the items contain, what is excluded, and a usage caution. It does not explain the return structure, but that is less critical without an output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and scope.

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 single parameter 'connection' is fully described in the schema, including its origin and security handling. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'private' aligns with the parameter's purpose.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'private current semantic work items' with details on what they include (evidence, versions, confidence, effective mode). It also lists exclusions, making the scope specific. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like suggestion_get, so it lacks that extra differentiation, but the purpose is 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?

The description implies usage by saying 'Review pending/accepted items' but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over suggestion_get or suggestion_resolve. It gives a contextual hint about reviewing pending/accepted items, but there is no mention of alternatives or when NOT to use it. Usage is partially implied but not fully explicit.

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