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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavior that returned data includes current run states, but it does not disclose pagination, default filtering of archived items, or any other behavioral traits. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the action, the resource, the additional run-state detail, and the workspace scope.

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 operation with a simple schema, the description plus annotations are mostly adequate, but gaps remain: includeArchived is unexplained, there is no mention of pagination, and the absence of an output schema means the exact return shape is only loosely implied by 'current run states.'

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 only 50%: workspaceSlug is described, but includeArchived has no schema description. The tool description does not mention either parameter or explain the meaning of includeArchived, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented optional parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('assessments') and adds a distinctive scope element ('current run states'), which separates it from the single-item get_assessment and from action-oriented siblings like launch_assessment or cancel_assessment. The scope 'in the approved workspace' further clarifies what is being listed.

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 that the tool should be used to list assessments within an approved workspace, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_assessment or list_findings, nor does it mention exclusion criteria. It provides some contextual direction through 'approved workspace' but leaves the choice among sibling tools to inference.

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