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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known, and restating 'read-only' adds nothing. The genuinely additive behavior is the 'newest first' ordering and the personal/active-workspace scoping, but return shape and pagination behavior past 'limit' are not described.

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 sentences, front-loaded with scope and ordering before the filters, with essentially no filler. The redundant 'Read-only' clause duplicates the annotations and could be dropped without loss.

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 three-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and both meaningful filters. The gap is 'limit' semantics and whether there is any result-count or pagination signal, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the parameter burden, and it does for two of three: 'query' is specified as matching over title/context/decision, and 'due_for_review' is defined as review_date reached and not yet reviewed. 'limit' is left entirely unexplained (no default, no max, no interaction with pagination).

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 (list decision-journal entries), plus scope (caller's personal entries, active workspace) and ordering (newest first), which an agent can act on directly. It does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling decision_cards_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the two filters as optional and explains the conditions under which each applies, which is useful implied guidance. It never says when to choose this tool over decision_cards_list or other decision-related siblings, leaving the main selection question unanswered.

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