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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new information by disclosing that each entry carries an elicitation block with a message and answer schema meant for relaying to the user. It does not mention freshness, expiry, or whether entries persist across calls, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition, then the payload shape, then the optional filter and the answering tool. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the elicitation block as the returned item structure is important and is present. For a single-optional-param read tool this is nearly complete; only ordering or request-expiry behavior is left unspecified.

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 100% and the single task_id parameter is already documented as 'Only requests of this task', so the description's 'Optionally filter by task_id' largely repeats the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the explanatory work.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('List the questions, write-action approvals and re-connect requests that your browser tasks are waiting on') enumerates exactly what kinds of pending items are returned. This cleanly separates it from siblings like alterlab_hands_answer or alterlab_hands_conversations.

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?

It states the use context (browser tasks waiting on the user) and explicitly routes the follow-up action to alterlab_hands_answer, which is a real workflow handoff. It does not state when-not to call it (e.g. whether it is safe/cheap to poll repeatedly), so it stops short of 5.

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