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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: pagination is cursor-based ('page through') and the status field reflects the answer state rather than the notification state. It omits ordering, defaults, and result shape.

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?

Two short sentences with the scope front-loaded and no filler; the second sentence efficiently packs the filtering behavior plus a semantic caveat. The caveat clause is slightly cryptic in isolation but earns its place by preventing a status/notification mix-up.

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 4-parameter, no-required-arg, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers scope, filtering, and pagination at a high level but leaves cursor semantics, default limit, and sort order unstated. Adequate to invoke, not enough to invoke confidently without inspecting the schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. 'Page through' communicates that beforeAt/beforeId are pagination cursors and 'filter by current status' disambiguates the status enum (answer state, not notification state), but the limit parameter and default/ordering behavior remain unexplained.

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 specific verb+resource: paging through this workspace's internal ask_person decisions. Naming ask_person anchors the domain, so an agent can separate it from single-item tools like get_decision or unrelated list_approvals. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for a different result shape.

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?

'Filter by current status' implies the intended usage, and the note that notification state is separate from the answer pre-empts a likely confusion about the status filter. However, it never states when to pick this over list_approvals or get_decision, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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