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 is covered. The description adds genuine extra behavior: the deterministic ordering scheme (impact bands, then round-robin by family) and the semantic status of the returned items ('not committed work yet'). It doesn't discuss pagination exhaustion or result size limits, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling disambiguation before ordering details and recipes, and the Args block is scannable. Slightly verbose in the middle paragraph about what committing does, which is useful framing but not strictly needed to invoke the tool.

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 and a low-coverage input schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: what the pool contains, how results are ordered, what the cursor represents, and how it differs from the nearest sibling. Nothing required for correct invocation is absent.

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 only 14%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it documents brand_id, family (with all 8 verbs), kind as 'comma-separated kinds, e.g. search_gap,audit_fix' (a format the bare string schema does not convey), impact, limit bounds, and the cursor's provenance from a previous response's meta.next_cursor. This adds real meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List suggestions waiting on a decision') and then names the sibling it must not be confused with: 'NOT the same tool as `get_opportunities`, which lists citation outreach targets (a different object).' An agent can distinguish it from the ~70 sibling tools without opening a schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use recipes ('What should we do next', 'Only page fixes', 'Highest impact first'), names the alternative tool and its exclusion condition, and clarifies that nothing in the list is committed work yet, implying `commit_opportunity` is the follow-up. Both positive and negative routing are covered.

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