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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds context beyond them: X-API-Key requirement, org-scoping (not a public explorer), and the important edge-case behavior that unknown public keys return an empty list with total 0 rather than an error. It also discloses the return shape and pagination contract.

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, then the when/when-not routing, then the return contract. It is dense and stacks many clauses into single sentences, but every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is filler.

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, 3-param, org-scoped list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the auth requirement, scoping, empty-result semantics, return fields, and pagination procedure. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to chain pages.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining where agent_public_key comes from (a prior log_decision response or register_agent) and how cursor/next_cursor chain across pages. It does not add format detail for limit beyond what the schema already states.

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 with scope: 'List decision events for one agent (by public key) in the API key's org, newest first by default.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings list_agent_outcomes, get_proof, log_decision and log_outcome, so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' (review logged events, pick an event_hash for get_proof, page history before linking an outcome) and 'When NOT to use' with the correct alternative named for each excluded case. It also pre-empts a likely wrong invocation by noting it does not accept agent_name.

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