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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one genuine addition is the 'GM only' authorization requirement, which annotations cannot express. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what a job record actually contains, but with annotations carrying the read semantics a 3 is fair.

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 definition is short and the audience restriction is front-loadable, but 'Returns: The jobs.' is pure tautology that restates the title and conveys nothing about the returned structure, particularly since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 is the only place the return shape can be explained, and it gives just 'how far each write-up has got' without naming the possible status values or fields. For a one-parameter read tool this is minimum viable, but an agent cannot predict what it will receive beyond a vague progress indicator.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the campaign slug-or-id form. The description adds only the 'this table' scoping notion, which loosely reinforces that the campaign identifies the table, but otherwise defers entirely to the schema. Baseline for fully covered single params is 3, nudged up slightly because the table framing clarifies scope.

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 conveys the resource as session notes queued for Lorekeeper plus their progress state, which is enough to tell it apart from the sibling queue_session_for_lorekeeper. However, it never uses an explicit verb like list or get, and the phrasing 'write-up' and 'jobs' leaves the agent to infer that this returns a queue listing rather than a single job.

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 only guidance is the 'GM only' audience restriction. There is no statement of when to call this versus queue_session_for_lorekeeper (which enqueues) or versus list_session_notes, so the agent must infer that this is the read side of the queue from names alone.

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