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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the exact negative-membership definition (no genesis import, no established_after, not on minepoa's established list), the returned fields, and a CSV export path at /api/v1/governance/never-established.csv.

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 scope predicate is correctly front-loaded, but the field list is a dense run-on ('joined, answers and last tx this segment, closes paid, balance') using unexplained domain shorthand. The trailing 'Use it to...' sentence spends space restating the name and earns little.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and pointing at the CSV endpoint. Combined with a fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the relationship to list_established is left implicit.

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 enums, defaults and bounds documented for dir, sort, limit and offset. The description adds nothing about sorting or pagination semantics, 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?

States a specific resource and a precise membership predicate: agents in minepoa's list that were never established in any POAScan segment, with the three exclusion conditions spelled out. That is far more than a restated title. It stops short of naming the complement sibling list_established, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring it from the name.

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 closing sentence 'Use it to list Agents that have never been established' only restates the set definition rather than giving a decision rule. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or routing to list_established, list_agents or list_at_risk, so usage remains implied by the tool name and scope predicate.

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