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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and "Read-only" merely restates that. The description earns credit for disclosing two traits the annotations don't: a mandatory attribution-footer passthrough on output and a data-accuracy contract restricting derived metrics and labels. Pagination/return shape is still 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?

Purpose is correctly front-loaded in the first sentence. However, the bulk of the text is a generic data-accuracy policy that would apply to virtually any data tool, making the description noticeably heavy for a one-parameter read-only list. Some sentences do not earn their place for this specific tool.

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?

Low tool complexity and no output schema mean the description needn't explain return values, and it does handle output consumption rules well. Still missing are what a "decision" record contains and how `limit` affects results, leaving an agent with gaps for even this simple tool.

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 0% for the single `limit` parameter, which appears as a bare integer with default 50. The description never mentions limit, page size, or result caps, so an agent gets no meaning beyond the field name. Only the word "recent" loosely gestures at result scope.

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 and resource: "List recent canonical decisions for this user." That clearly separates it from canonical_decisions_add and from the canonical_facts_list/context siblings. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to reach for this tool versus canonical_facts_list, canonical_context_get, or canonical_decisions_add. The word "recent" hints at a recency window but no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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