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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description needn't repeat that. Instead it adds genuinely useful behavioral disclosure: which sensitive fields are suppressed (arguments, signatures, authorization revisions, bearer ids) and that the disposition projection is content-free and never returns targets, records, review text, or committed results.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its suppression guarantees before introducing the projection variant. It is information-rich rather than padded, though the second sentence is somewhat run-on.

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 and no annotation coverage of the return shape, the description does explain the two response modes (legacy default vs content-free disposition), which is valuable. But it leaves the limit and toolName parameters unexplained, so an agent cannot fully construct a correct call from this text alone.

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 carries the full burden. It explains requestId ('one exact requestId') and projection ('projection=disposition_v1') but says nothing about limit or toolName, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 (List) and resource (action-request statuses) with a clear scope restriction: 'created by this authenticated connector'. It distinguishes itself from receipt/thread siblings implicitly, but never names an alternative tool, so it stops short of full 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?

The description gives a concrete conditional for opting into the alternate response mode ('one exact requestId plus projection=disposition_v1'), which is real usage guidance. However it offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to siblings like list_my_confirmation_receipts or get_coordination_thread, so the routing value is only partial.

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