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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact selection criteria, the return fields, and the fact that it works regardless of execution method. Although it does not explicitly state 'read-only,' the 'queue inspector' phrasing and action of listing imply no side effects, which is sufficient for a non-mutating tool.

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 efficient, front-loading the purpose and usage, and including the return shape. The 'P71' prefix adds a minor cryptic label that isn't necessary, but overall every sentence contributes meaningful context.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the exact return fields. It also covers the filtering condition, execution methods, and the tool's relationship to cron-driven reviews. This is complete for a read-only queue inspection tool with optional parameters.

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%, with runId described as 'Optional. Restrict to one run.' and workspaceId as 'Optional workspace id.' The tool description does not add further parameter-specific semantics, so it neither enhances nor detracts from what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a 'measurement queue inspector' and states it 'Lists actions where metadata.proof.measurementDueAt <= now AND metadata.proof.measuredAt is unset.' This specifies a distinct purpose and resource, differentiating it from other tools like force_measurement_due or post_launch_review.

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 explicitly says 'USE WHEN the agent wants to know which executed actions are ready for their 24h readback' and explains how it relates to chiefmo_post_launch_review. It clearly states the tool surfaces the queue for opportunistic use instead of waiting for the next cron tick, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or name direct alternative tools for exclusion.

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