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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (status counts, per-row actions with arguments, both the review-card id and content id), but says nothing about permissions, read-only vs mutating nature, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's output purpose followed by the id-routing detail. Little waste, though the backtick formatting is slightly heavy; nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape, and it does: it describes status counts, available actions with arguments, and the two id formats. It leaves out filtering/pagination behavior and permission requirements, but the core calling information is present.

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%, so all three parameters (status enum, workspace_id, token) are already fully documented in the schema, including the default-current-workspace and token-precedence semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a concrete resource and scope ('CMO feed list with status counts and actions available on each row'), and differentiates itself from siblings by naming exactly which tool each printed id routes to (autowhisper_action vs autowhisper_edit_content). The verb is implied rather than stated ('list'), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this to discover feed rows and the ids needed for autowhisper_action/autowhisper_edit_content. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. autowhisper_status for workspace ids).

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