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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only partially does so. "List" implies a safe read, but the description never states pagination behavior (a limit parameter with default 25 exists), ordering, or what a returned item contains — all material for a listing endpoint with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with purpose then filters, with no redundant or filler text. Every clause 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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema, 4-parameter list tool, the description is adequate but incomplete: it never mentions the limit/pagination default, the valid state values, or what the result set looks like. An agent can call it, but not optimally.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it names three of four filters (state, capability, assignee). It omits the limit/pagination parameter entirely and does not surface the state enum values, so the coverage gap is only partially closed.

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 durable work items") plus the scope ("available to agents"), so an agent immediately knows this is the read/enumeration operation. It does not name any sibling (work_claim, work_update, work_create) to sharpen the distinction, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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 second sentence signals the filtering use case (state, capability, assignee), which implies when the tool is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance — e.g. nothing says to use work_claim to take an item instead of listing it, or when to prefer this over work_update.

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