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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses useful behavior: single-project scoping, a createdAt freshness window, enriched return fields (title/description-preview/parent/counts), and the pickup-status semantics. But the disclosure is undermined by the same backlog contradiction — the default filter would return goals the description declares unusable — so the behavioral picture is not fully reliable.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose phrase 'Pull-инбокс для «подхватить и довести»', with scoping and return-format details packed densely but readably. The trailing parameter enumeration is redundant given 100% schema coverage, which is the only notable waste.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return contract (enriched records with title/description-preview/parent/counts) and the filter contract (project, withinDays, statuses, limit). Gaps remain: no sort-order semantics despite 'recent' in the tool name, and the unresolved default-vs-guidance conflict over backlog statuses.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description's restatement of project/withinDays/statuses/limit adds little beyond the schema. It does add interpretive value by explaining the executor-queue meaning of ready_for_work and checking_ac_errored, but the 'backlog нельзя брать' note conflicts with the schema-documented default, weakening that added semantics.

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 names a specific resource and action: a 'pull-inbox' for pick-up-and-finish workflows, scoped to one project, a recency window, and status-based filtering. It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling goal-get by noting it returns enriched records 'чтобы выбрать без goal-get' (to choose without goal-get), and its focus is distinct from goal-list, goal-tree, and goal-todo.

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 frames when to use it — a pickup session for the executor's queue (ready_for_work, checking_ac_errored) — and contrasts it with goal-get for selection. However, the status guidance is internally contradictory: it states 'backlog-цели брать нельзя' (backlog goals cannot be taken) while the statuses parameter defaults to ["backlog"], so an agent following the default would request items the description says to avoid.

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