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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the burden is light. The description adds a useful semantic constraint ('listing does not approve a different promise') but says nothing about filtering behavior or what the returned set contains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the read purpose and followed by the workflow caveat. No padding, though the final instruction is slightly terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with three parameters at 0% coverage and a kind enum, the description leaves the filtering semantics for deskId and includeRetired unaddressed.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It only gestures at the kind values by naming 'feature and timeline statements'; deskId and includeRetired are entirely undocumented in both description and schema.

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 (read/list) and resource (approved feature and timeline statements), so the agent knows what it retrieves. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling search_approved_answers, leaving some overlap unresolved.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: listing does not itself approve a promise, and evaluate_commitment should be called with the exact wording before making a claim. That steers the agent toward the right follow-up tool, though it stops short of stating when to prefer this over search_approved_answers.

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