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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=falseastra. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: empty results are a legitimate answer, the summary is all-zero for no reviews, and results are scoped to the owner's review marks. This significantly helps an agent interpret unexpected responses.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core function and output come first, followed by edge-case behavior, scope, and access restrictions. Every sentence adds distinct information without redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter prog, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all needed behavioral context: empty-list semantics, owner scoping, and tier restrictions. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for report_id. The tool description does not add detail about the parameter beyond the schema, which is acceptable because the schema already defines it. The baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('every figure review recorded for one report'), and the additional output ('state-count summary'). It also explains the tool's role as the 'coverage view' for identifying figures needing human review, which distinguishes it from write tools like save_figure_review.

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 provides clear context: this is the coverage view for checking which figures still need human review. It also gives exclusions: the tool is owner-scoped and has a tier restriction (sp500+). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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