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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are summaries rather than full content, and they follow the coder's own ordering with front-first priority. It does not mention pagination behavior, though limit/offset exist.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (state semantics, planning relevance, alternative tool). Slightly dense with several ideas packed in, but no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly characterizes the return (bounded summaries, defined ordering) and covers the state parameter fully. Annotations handle safety, and all parameters are documented. Only pagination/limit semantics are left unexplained, 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the state enum by explaining what archived and declined actually represent (completed vs. decided against with a reason) — going beyond the schema's terse 'Which Ideas to list.' The other three parameters are left to 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 and resource (List ideas) scoped to 'a project's ideas in one state,' and clarifies the output shape as 'bounded summaries in the vibe coder's own order.' An agent can distinguish this from get, search_works, and list_projects without opening any 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?

Explains the state selector semantics (active is default, archived were completed, declined were decided against) and identifies which subset feeds planning. It also names the alternative explicitly: 'Call get with kind idea for full content,' giving a clear condition for switching tools.

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