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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, making the read-only nature clear. The description adds value by specifying the return format (enriched records with fields) and the freshness window based on createdAt. It does not describe auth/rate limits or the 'неосновное окно' concept, but for a read-only list tool this is adequate. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact, with a clear parameter list appended. It front-loads the purpose and then specifies parameters. However, the phrase 'неосновное окно' is jargon that may confuse an agent, and the structure could be slightly more direct.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return fields. It explains the filtering scope (project, withinDays, statuses) and the enriched output. Missing details include error conditions and the meaning of 'неосновное окно', but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, each with descriptions that match the tool description (project slug, withinDays window, statuses subset, limit). The description repeats the same defaults and allowed values without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns enriched records (title/description-preview/parent/counts) for selecting items without calling goal-get, scoped to one project, a time window, and statuses. It distinguishes itself from goal-get by explicitly mentioning that alternative is not needed. The phrasing 'pull-inbox' is slightly metaphorical but the core action (list recent unresolved items) is clear.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to pick up and work on items by project, within N days, and with certain statuses. It names goal-get as an alternative to avoid, which helps with tool selection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools like goal-list or goal-todo, so exclusions are missing.

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