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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates the per-mission payload (id, score, channel, snippet, handle, role, draft) and explicitly warns against shell/file inspection because data is already structured. Pagination or result-size limits are not mentioned.

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 purpose, then a compact field list, then presentation rules. Every block earns its place, though the presentation paragraph is slightly wordy with its triple 'do not' phrasing.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating returned fields and dictating presentation format. Only gaps are pagination/limit behavior and result ordering context beyond what the schema's sort_by text supplies.

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 both sort_by and include_context are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions returned fields (score, role, handle, snippet, draft) but adds no meaning to the actual parameters, leaving the schema to do all the work — the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

The opening sentence states a specific verb (List), resource (lead missions), and scope filter (pending, awaiting review). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like draft_mission, approve_mission, or get_pipeline 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?

The description implies usage ('awaiting review') and gives output-handling guidance (numbered list, read directly from JSON, don't run shell commands), but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or exclusions. The routing to draft_mission for single missions lives only in the schema parameter text, not the description.

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