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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond that: the result ordering rule ('open ones first, overdue at the top') and the scoping to a programme's matches, which the agent cannot get from 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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the core scope comes first, then ordering and the filter modifier. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what a returned step contains and its ordering, which is enough to decide whether to call it. Minor gaps remain around who 'the person' is and whether results are bounded or paginated for a large programme.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description's '`mine` keeps only the ones the person does' largely restates the schema's wording for `mine` and adds no format or edge-case detail for `program` or `match_id`.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('the next steps of the person's matches in a programme') and even enumerates the fields each step carries (what, who, by when, done). It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not (e.g. list_tasks or get_my_todo), so the distinction has to be inferred.

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?

It implies usage through the 'programme' scoping and the 'mine' filter, and mentions result ordering, which hints at when this list is useful. But it never says when to prefer it over a sibling list tool, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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