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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it: nothing says whether the call is read-only, whether results are paginated, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. The status-value explanations are useful domain context but belong to parameter semantics rather than behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the filter vocabulary, with no filler. The first sentence is a fragment without an explicit verb, which slightly weakens orientation, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits pagination behavior, whether filters combine, and the shape of returned items, which an agent would need to plan a call sequence.

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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3, and the description earns an extra point by enumerating the valid status values (in_review, with_client, accepted, drafting) and clarifying that in_review means waiting for the owner. The schema only says 'Optional status filter' with no enum, so this meaning is genuinely additive; client_id remains unexplained but is covered by the schema.

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 identifies the resource concretely as 'client work produced by Mycel' and indicates it is a filtered listing through the status-filter sentence. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_deliverable, but an agent can still distinguish listing from single-item retrieval by name and content.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_deliverable, and no statement about combining status with client_id. The only guidance is implied by listing valid status values, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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