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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful conditional visibility rule (which_company shown only when the person manages the workspace) and an exclusion note, but no pagination or ordering behavior. Adds some value over annotations.

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 core purpose and a compact enumerated list, then the routing and exclusion notes. The who/which-company parenthetical is dense but earns its place by explaining a conditional visibility rule.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, excludes the held-for-review case, and notes a conditional visibility rule. It leaves the kinds filter semantics implicit, but overall complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50%: the company parameter is fully documented in the schema, but the kinds array lacks any prose explanation in the description. The description enumerates the kinds in natural language (suggested matches, possible duplicates, suggested rules, whose-money, which-company, unread documents), partially compensating for the missing kinds param docs, aligning with a baseline 3.

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 resource (items waiting for a decision) and enumerates the exact kinds it returns, distinguishing it from sibling resolve_review_item which settles them. An agent can tell this is the worklist tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to resolve_review_item (settles them), and clarifies the boundary that AI changes held for review are handled elsewhere in Aggregate. Strong context, though it doesn't state when to filter by kinds vs. fetch all.

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