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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by spelling out the shape of the result set (stopped approaches, stop location, cause, and remediation), which annotations do not convey. It omits pagination/ordering behavior for limit and offset, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the imperative that matters most, and the sibling routing is placed last where it belongs. The all-caps "READ THE WALLS" framing is slightly theatrical but functional rather than wasteful.

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?

This is a read-only list tool with no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so. Parameter behavior is fully covered by the schema; only paging semantics and default ordering are unstated, a minor gap.

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% and all five parameters are documented there, so the description rightly does not repeat them. It hints at the state filter ("approaches ... that stopped" implies standing) but never clarifies standing vs overturned, questionId, or objectiveId scoping, so it adds little beyond 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?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (dead ends / stopped approaches) and enumerates the payload: where they stopped, why, and what would change the outcome. This clearly separates it from register_dead_end and overturn_dead_end, which the agent can identify without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prescriptive trigger ("READ THE WALLS before you start") plus the rationale (cheapest way not to repeat a failed run), and names two concrete follow-on alternatives, register_dead_end and claim_work, with the condition for each. Nothing is left to inference.

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