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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered upstream. The description adds genuine context about permission scoping and org-configurable approval requirements, but says nothing about pagination behavior, filtering, or result ordering.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, so there is no bloat. However, the second sentence is generic approval boilerplate that consumes half the description without helping an agent invoke the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. But with 0% schema coverage on three parameters and no mention of pagination or search in the description, an agent lacks the information needed to call this collection endpoint 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 description coverage is 0% across all three parameters (limit, offset, search), and the description never mentions them. An agent must guess that this is paginated and that a free-text search filter exists, and gets no bounds or format guidance from prose.

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 says 'Read diligence field' which identifies a verb and resource, but 'Read' undersells that this is a list/collection endpoint (per the name and pagination params). It also never distinguishes this from the sibling list_diligence_tab, leaving the field-vs-tab distinction to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_diligence_tab, get-style siblings, or the corresponding write tools. The only guidance offered is about approval configuration, not about selecting the tool.

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