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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered without the description. The description adds one genuine behavioral caveat – 'None are marked done while dispatch is disabled' – which tells the agent results may lack a completed status depending on system state, though the phrasing is cryptic and the return format/pagination is left to the output schema.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded ahead of the state caveat. The second sentence is terse to the point of ambiguity but does convey information rather than padding.

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 tool with full annotations, complete parameter schema and an output schema, the description supplies the essential scope plus a state caveat. Nothing critical is missing, though the dispatch caveat is underexplained.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented with range and default in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the limit, so the 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 names a specific resource with a qualifier: 'Finished postflop solutions saved for this account.' The word 'finished' implicitly distinguishes it from list_queued_solves and get_queued_solve, so an agent can separate the completed-solution listing from the pending one. It is clear but does not explicitly name the sibling it excludes.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'finished postflop solutions' – an agent can infer this is the tool for browsing already-computed results rather than queued work. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g., list_queued_solves) to route to for unfinished solves.

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