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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing what is returned (reporter, subject, status, and the resolved answer) and the full status vocabulary including 'not a mistake of the check'. It adds genuine domain semantics beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about ordering, volume, or behavior when no reports exist.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the resource being listed. The parenthetical status list is long but each entry carries information an agent needs to interpret results; only the em-dash nesting ('and once settled the answer: …') is slightly hard to parse.

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 carries the burden of return values and does so reasonably: it names the fields and status lifecycle an agent will see. For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage that is largely sufficient, with only pagination and empty-result behavior left unstated.

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% and each parameter already documents its filter semantics, including the '#'-prefixed run number for run_id. The description only restates the app/scenario/check axis and adds nothing about the team parameter or whether the filters combine or are mutually exclusive, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource precisely ('every reported mistake of the check') and states the three scoping levels (app, scenario, check), which distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling report_check_mistake. It never uses an explicit verb like 'list', but the enumerative phrasing plus the title make the read/list intent unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to inspect existing mistake reports, and the filter wording hints at narrowing by app/scenario/check. There is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no pointer to siblings such as get_verdict or report_check_mistake for the opposite action.

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