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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: entries are ordered newest first, the card shown is AWAITING REVIEW (not currently served), and the verification process is described. It also states the required scope (admin:endpoints_review) and return shape, all of which go beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it states the primary action first, then details the queue contents, explains the context and decision, and finally lists arguments, returns, and required scope. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the 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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and a clear sibling context, the description is complete. It specifies what the queue contains, what has already been proven, what the agent's judgment should be about, the parameter constraints, the return structure, and the required scope. No critical information is missing.

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 input schema covers the only parameter (limit) with a description and constraints, so the baseline is 3. The tool description merely restates 'max 200, default 50' without adding new semantics. No extra meaning is needed because the schema already documents the parameter effectively.

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 opens with 'Read the endpoint-registry review queue, newest first,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling list_pending_* tools for events, highlights, key requests, etc. It further specifies that entries show the card AWAITING REVIEW, who registered it, and which origin was mechanically proven, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 context for when to use the tool: to review the endpoint-registry queue before deciding whether the service belongs on the floor. It explains that origin ownership is already proven, so the agent knows what the judgment should focus on. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is strong enough for an agent to differentiate.

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