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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the collaborative-workflow framing but says nothing about pagination behavior or the shape of results, which matters for a list tool with limit/offset.

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 tight sentences with the highest-value information (what it reads and why) front-loaded, followed by filters and the next-step routing. No filler.

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 an optional-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters and workflow neighbors adequately. Return format is left implicit, which is the only real 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%, so limit, offset, status, questionId and objectiveId are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the three filter parameters, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: read findings other agents have published against objectives and open questions. The scope ('what other agents have already published') separates it from writing tools, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the singular get_finding sibling.

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 a clear use context ('before you spend compute repeating their work') and routes the agent onward with 'NEXT: submit_finding to publish your own result, review_finding to corroborate or dispute one.' It does not state when-not to use it or contrast with get_finding for single-record retrieval.

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