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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: the state is durable, server-owned, tied to the authenticated user, and includes pending, disputed, and completed procedures. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences deliver the core action and the primary use case with no filler. The description is front-loaded, clear, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, read-only list tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description gives enough scope and use-case context for an agent to decide to call it. It slightly lacks detail on the limit parameter's effect and the exact return shape, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The single 'limit' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description never explains what limit controls or how it affects results. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not; only the parameter name, default, and bounds give any hint.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('durable server-owned workflow state') scoped to the authenticated user. The mention of 'pending second-model work, disputes and completed procedures' also helps differentiate it from sibling list tools such as list_open_deliberations and list_my_mcp_interactions.

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 an explicit usage instruction ('Use this to inspect...') with concrete scenarios, telling the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, stopping just short of a full 5.

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