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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: oldest-first ordering, grouping categories, handling of incomplete board history as unplaced, and per-item reasons and last actor. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: the core stuck definition appears first, followed by grouping logic and usage guidance. Every clause adds relevant selection information, though the single long paragraph could be slightly easier to scan.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description explains the result grouping, ordering, per-item contents, and edge-case handling. An agent has enough information to decide when and how to call it.

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 100%, so parameter documentation is already strong and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by explaining the waiting_on categories and the idle-day condition behind stuck_days.

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/resource combination: open Canton Dev Fund proposals with no recent activity, grouped by who must act next. It clearly distinguishes the tool from generic proposal listing by defining stuck conditions and grouping. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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 says to use it for "what is stuck and on whom," which gives clear selection context. It does not name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the usage scenario is stated plainly.

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