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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful filter context: only non-revoked reports released to the approved workspace are returned. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or response shape, so the added behavioral detail is moderate rather than rich.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object and uses qualifiers like 'non-revoked' and 'approved workspace' to add meaning without waste.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only list operation with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the list operation's intent is clear, and missing pagination details are minor at this complexity level.

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?

The single parameter workspaceSlug is fully documented in the schema with format, length, and meaning, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description only indirectly references the workspace via 'approved workspace' and adds no new parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and a clearly bounded resource: non-revoked reports released to the approved workspace. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_report (single report) and list_findings (different resource), even without naming alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_report or list_findings. The description states only what the tool does, not when to prefer it or what alternatives exist, so usage must be inferred entirely from context.

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