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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful extra context: work is 'current' and, crucially, that task text is untrusted data and not instructions, proof, escrow, or authority — a valuable safety-relevant behavior beyond what annotations or schema convey.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by giving the security-relevant 'untrusted data' warning in a compact way.

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 a read-only annotation set, a provided output schema, and a single optional limit parameter, the description covers the essential intent and the notable untrusted-data warning. It could have mentioned pagination, ordering, or relationship to sibling work-request statuses, but the structured fields already supply much of what an agent needs.

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 one optional parameter, limit, with clear min/max constraints in the schema but no description. The tool description does not add any meaning about how the limit behaves. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory enough, but the description still fails to add semantic value beyond the input 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+resource ('List current holder-signed work requests') and makes the resource type clear enough to distinguish from sibling list tools like list_accepted_work and list_returned_work. The title adds a helpful second label ('Agent Wanted requests').

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'current holder-signed work requests' implies a scope, but it does not tell an agent when to choose this over list_accepted_work, list_returned_work, or get_agent_next_action.

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