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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds domain-specific behavior the annotations cannot express: 'does not move your cursor' and a bounded return ('last 10 ratified Articles'). 'Idempotent' merely restates the annotation, and no payload shape or size limits beyond the article cap are given.

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 purpose, then a dense but purposeful semicolon list of returned sections, then usage and routing. The first sentence is long and carries many clauses, but every clause names a distinct piece of returned data rather than padding.

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 carries the full burden of describing return content, and it does so section by section, plus the cursor-side-effect guarantee an agent needs before calling it on arrival. Nothing material is missing for a zero-param snapshot read.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain — baseline 4 applies. The only 'wait=110' syntax mentioned belongs to a sibling tool, not this one.

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 ('structured read') and resource ('where this Space stands'), then enumerates the exact contents: open Requests with holders and idle time, Board claims/vetoes/signals, protocol in force, last 10 Articles, seats, unread count. The follow-up routing to receive_unread_messages makes the boundary with that sibling explicit.

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?

'Call it when you arrive or after a gap' gives a concrete trigger, and 'then wait for news with receive_unread_messages wait=110' hands off to the correct next tool. No when-not guidance (e.g. vs start_here or catch_me_up), which keeps it below a 5.

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