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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavior beyond structured fields: the exact sort order (low-confidence first, then needs_human_review flagged, then alpha), which directly affects how the agent consumes results.

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 tight sentences: definition, ordering semantics, then usage. Front-loaded with the scoping condition and no wasted filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully discloses return ordering and the selection criteria, which is what the 'pick the next pattern' workflow needs. The one gap is the undocumented limit parameter.

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 coverage is 0% and the single bounded parameter (limit, 1-250) is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no guidance on result count. The description does disclose ordering behavior, which partially compensates, but leaves the only parameter undocumented.

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 and resource — return patterns that have not been human-reviewed — with the defining filter (no reviewed_by) made explicit. An agent can distinguish this from list_suites, list_requirements, or search_patterns without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the workflow context: 'Use during Phase 3 review to pick the next pattern to examine.' It tells the agent when this tool is the right one, though it doesn't name an alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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