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

With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful context: the call is FREE (no credits), results are newest first, and only one active row per page/field is returned. It does not describe pagination limits or auth requirements, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 compact sentence with zero filler. The resource and scope are front-loaded, and every clause — patch types, ordering, cardinality, cost, and read-only status — carries useful 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 one-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers the return shape, ordering, deduplication rule, and cost. The only notable gap is pagination or result-limit behavior, but that is minor given the schema and annotations already cover safety and input.

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% and the sole projectId parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including where to obtain it. The description's phrase 'for a project' adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description names the exact resource (patches) and the specific subset returned: drafted title/metaDescription/canonical/redirect fixes for a project. It also states the ordering and uniqueness semantics, making it immediately distinguishable from mutation siblings such as draft_patch or publish_patch.

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 when to use it — to inspect patches already drafted for a project — but gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives. It does not tell the agent whether to prefer this over list_patch_auto_publish_rules or how it relates to draft_patch.

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