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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping (server-owned, durable, authenticated user) but does not disclose behavior such as ordering, pagination, or what the returned items look like; this is consistent with the calibration example where read annotations plus scoping but no output behavior earns a 3.

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 with no filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded and the usage hint follows immediately. Every clause contributes information.

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 and safety covered by annotations, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it: user scope, content categories, and an explicit use case. The lack of any mention of return shape or pagination keeps it from a 5, but it is not a material gap for this low-complexity 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?

There is one optional 'limit' parameter and the schema fully constrains it with default, minimum, and maximum, but schema_description_coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the parameter at all. Because the description must compensate when coverage is low and it does not, the parameter semantics score is 2.

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 description names a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('durable server-owned workflow state'), and a user scope ('authenticated TestGraph user'), plus concrete content categories. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as list_open_deliberations or list_my_mcp_interactions, so it falls just 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?

'Use this to inspect pending second-model work, disputes and completed procedures' gives a clear context for when to call the tool. No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so 4 rather than 5.

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