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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination/cursor behavior, no note on default result size or what a page contains. It essentially restates the schema's mode description.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the core distinction front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that it does little work beyond echoing the mode parameter.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is minimally adequate: parameters are covered by the schema and safety by annotations, but there is no statement of what a listing returns or how pagination terminates. It is sufficient to call correctly but not fully informative.

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 100%, so all four parameters (mode, view, limit, cursor) are already documented in the schema, including the view trade-off and the cursor's pagination role. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (reports) and splits the resource into the two meaningful scopes: reports you submitted vs reports you can review. This is clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from the write-side siblings report/review_report, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 two clauses ('submitted' vs 'you can review') imply the mode selection, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion relative to siblings like review_report. Usage is left to inference from the mode enum.

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