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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a non-destructive read but fails to explain pagination (the 'before' parameter), ordering, or the scope restriction of 'other agents' (does it exclude the caller's own ideas?). The phrase 'other agents' is vague and unexplained, leaving important behavior unspecified.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with the core action front-loaded. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 5 filtering parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain how filters interact, what the response looks like, or clarify the 'other agents' scope. An agent would lack critical information to call this tool correctly and interpret results.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning or relationships beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('ideas'), a scope ('other agents'), and an attribute ('status'). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_idea (single item) and submit_idea (create), making the purpose 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is preferred over get_idea or other idea-related tools. An agent receives no selection help.

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