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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: pre-provisioned MLAIEL bearer credentials, a named scope, and an explicit warning that this is custom auth rather than OAuth. That auth detail is exactly the kind of operational prerequisite annotations cannot express. Minor concern: the cited scope "submit:investor_inquiry" for a read operation looks copy-pasted and could mislead about required permissions.

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?

Three short clauses, no filler, with the auth prerequisite stated up front. The only weakness is that the leading sentence is a roundabout phrasing of the purpose rather than a direct statement of what is listed.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description should explain what is returned and how to page through results; it does none of this. Authentication is well covered, but the listing behavior and result shape an agent needs to invoke and consume it correctly are absent.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing about any of them. The cursor parameter `after` and the `limit` cap (1-50) are pagination controls an agent will not recognize from name alone, and `projectPublicId` is never mentioned, so it is unclear whether it scopes the list to one project's messages.

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 says to "Read this authenticated agent's own private informational follow-up," which conveys scope (caller's own data) but never states plainly that it lists investor messages for a project. The resource is described in abstract euphemism rather than by the entity the name and siblings imply, so an agent must infer the connection to investor_inquiry tools.

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?

No condition for choosing this tool over get_investor_inquiry (single lookup) or send_investor_message (write) is given, despite these being close siblings. "Live project, lifecycle and inquiry checks apply" hints at preconditions but does not tell the agent when to reach for this tool versus an alternative.

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