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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. The description does add one genuinely useful cross-tool fact: returned ids can be passed to delete_conclusion. No mention of pagination defaults beyond what the schema carries.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, with the delete-tip last. 'Read-only' is the only phrase that duplicates annotation data rather than earning 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all nine parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers the two modes adequately; only the ambiguous boundary with the `search` sibling is left unaddressed.

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 all nine parameters (including peer_id, target_peer_id, reverse, session_id) are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the query and ordering behavior but adds no syntax or default details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('list the facts/conclusions') plus scope ('about a person, newest first, or best matches for a query'), so the two operating modes are clear. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling `search`, which likely covers overlapping query semantics.

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?

Describes the two modes (plain listing vs query match) and notes the id feeds delete_conclusion, which implies usage. But it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against alternatives like `search` or `get_peer_card`, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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