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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds workspace scoping, the concept of "recent" ordering, and the meaning of the indeterminate state, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, ordering defaults, or how the returned effects relate to effect receipts, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 tightly written sentences. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the practical use case follows immediately with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 filtered list tool with no required parameters and read-only annotations, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly for its main purpose. It could be more complete by mentioning default behavior, output shape, or how it differs from ratchet_effect_receipts, but those are gaps rather than fatal omissions.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for state and run_id by identifying them as filters and elaborates on the state enum with the indeterminate example. The effect_type parameter is already documented in the schema, and "recent" implies limit usage, though limit itself isn't explicitly described.

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 clearly states a specific operation: "Review recent effects for this workspace," with optional filtering by state or run. It distinguishes itself from actions like check, report, or resolve through the "list" framing, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely named siblings like ratchet_effect_receipts.

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 gives a concrete use case: "Use it to find unresolved work — filter by state 'indeterminate' to see every action whose outcome is unknown and still needs verification." This provides clear contextual guidance, but it doesn't mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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