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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context: required scope, cursor binding, oldest-first sorting with retained cutoff, refresh-without-cursor behavior for newly due work, and what is live versus retained.

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 dense but front-loaded and every sentence adds operational information. It uses a compact, note-like style that is efficient, though the semicolon-heavy phrasing makes some sentences less scannable than they could be.

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 complex list tool with no output schema and zero schema parameter descriptions, it supplies purpose, permissions, filters, pagination, due-work semantics, and boundaries against sibling resources. It leaves return-shape details implicit, which is a minor gap given the lack of an output 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 parameter meaning. It covers all four parameters semantically: limit 1–50, state filter values, follow_up due condition, and owner/filter-bound cursor. It does not detail cursor format or restate defaults, but it compensates well for the schema gap.

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: discover latest owned attention reviews, with a clear inclusion scope (cleared, terminal, archived, unavailable work). It distinguishes this list from queue-oriented tools by explicitly excluding queue filtering and providers, and separates retained reviewed evidence from current ticket metadata.

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 gives prerequisites (tickets:read), filter semantics (unresolved/resolved/all, follow_up=due), pagination guidance for due work, and an explicit exclusion (no queue filtering or providers). It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for queue filtering, so it is clear but not fully routing-oriented.

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