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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are workspace-scoped, time-bound ('recent'), and it defines the operational meaning of 'indeterminate' as outcome unknown and still needing verification. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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, with the core action front-loaded ('Review recent effects'), followed by optional scoping and a concrete use case. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The essential invocation context is covered: what is listed, the workspace scope, available filters, and a concrete use case. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. With no output schema, the return shape is left implied, and siblings are not explicitly differentiated, but for a simple list tool this is largely sufficient.

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 meaning for state (including the indeterminate semantics) and run ('filter by run'). effect_type already has a schema description, and limit is self-evident. Some parameter detail is still left to inference, but the added guidance is meaningful.

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 clear verb ('Review') and resource ('recent effects for this workspace'), and frames a specific diagnostic use case ('find unresolved work'). It is unambiguous as a list/read tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as ratchet_effect_receipts or ratchet_check_effect, so it stops short of perfect sibling differentiation.

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 an explicit when-to-use: 'Use it to find unresolved work' and recommends a concrete filter ('state indeterminate'). It also notes optional filters by state or run. It does not list when-not-to-use or alternative sibling tools, so it does not earn a 5.

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