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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is consistent but not the main value. The description adds that results are newest first, include the server's own description, irreversibility, and remaining plan_token validity, and instructs the agent to show descriptions verbatim rather than rewriting them. That is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though return format and pagination behavior are not fully 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core scope and result contents, then gives usage context and a display instruction. It is appropriately sized for the tool, with little wasted wording. Minor repetition between 'Read-only' and readOnlyHint is acceptable for emphasis.

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-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description explains what is returned, ordering, and the main use cases. It does not specify limit semantics or pagination, but otherwise an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: include_expired is well documented in the schema, while limit is not described beyond minimum and maximum in the schema. The description implies ordering ('newest first') and explains plan_token validity, which indirectly helps interpret expired proposals, but it does not explain limit default behavior or formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema and description together are adequate but not fully compensatory.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list write actions proposed by this user in this workspace that are not yet confirmed, newest first. It also distinguishes the result from raw action records by saying each entry includes the server's own description, irreversibility, and plan_token validity. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the 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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: answer 'what is waiting for my approval?' and recover a proposal made in another conversation. It does not name when not to use it or a specific alternative, but the use case is explicit enough for correct selection.

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