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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the returned records include the governing brief and a judging-progress indicator, and it sets an evaluation standard for interpreting those records.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The scope statement is front-loaded and the interpretive caveat follows. Every clause carries 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 read-only list with one optional filter this covers what is returned and how to read it, but it leaves out how pulls relate to their rows (pros_rows) and to the downstream qualify/promote flow, which matters in this dense sibling set. Adequate, not complete.

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% and the single source_id param is documented as 'One pull.' The description adds nothing about the parameter — in fact 'Every staged pull' reads as unfiltered listing, which slightly undersells that source_id narrows to one pull. 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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: 'Every staged pull with the brief it was made under and how far it has been judged' — an agent can tell this enumerates pulls plus their brief and judging progress. It stops short of distinguishing it from siblings like pros_rows or pros_qualify, but the verb+resource is concrete rather than tautological.

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?

It gives a workflow instruction — 'Read the criteria before judging any of its rows' — and warns that verdicts must be made against the stated brief. That implies usage (call this to see pulls, then judge rows), but it never names an alternative tool or says when to use pros_rows/pros_qualify instead.

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