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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's addition of 'Read tier' reinforces safety without redundancy. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the specific return fields, the ordering 'newest first', and the protocol/endpoint (v0.2, GET /coord/cycles). No side effects are implied, consistent with annotations.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists fields, filters, and follow-up. While packed, every clause earns its place—endpoint, fields, ordering, filters, permission note, and next step—so it is efficient rather than verbose. No fluff.

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 operation with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent: it lists all returned fields, specifies ordering, mentions the permission model, and points to a sibling tool for deeper detail. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, status, project_id), so the schema already explains them. The description only repeats the filter capability ('Filter by project_id and/or status') without adding new meaning or syntax details. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the load.

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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (coordination-cycle roots), and the scope (in the organization). It enumerates the exact fields returned (root id, title, status, etc.) and ordering (newest first), and distinguishes itself from siblings like tascan_create_cycle and tascan_get_cycle_report by its listing nature and follow-up reference.

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 description explicitly states filtering options ('Filter by project_id and/or status') and provides a clear alternative: 'Follow up with tascan_get_cycle_report root_id=... for the full audit trail.' It also clarifies the permission context ('a reviewer's read-only key can call this too'), so an agent knows when this tool is appropriate and when to use a sibling.

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