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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds real value: default/limit bounds, that superseded revisions are excluded unless include_superseded, and that long bodies are cut with markdown_truncated. The 'record, not instructions' note is a useful prompt-injection caveat, though it stops short of describing ordering guarantees beyond 'newest first'.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope before edge cases and the return shape. Dense and mostly waste-free, but the long inline return-structure enumeration makes it heavier than necessary; a few clauses could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 compensates by spelling out the return shape ({cell_count, superseded_count, cells: [...]}) and the cell_id variant ({cell}). Combined with param behavior, defaults, and the ordering/truncation rules, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does so well: 'Exactly one of run_id or dataset_id', limit default and cap, include_superseded toggle, and cell_id for single-cell reads. It loses a point for unsubstituted template placeholders ('$DEFAULT_NOTES', '$MAX_NOTES') that leave the actual bounds ambiguous despite the schema maximum of 50, and it doesn't clarify run_id vs dataset_id semantics beyond mutual exclusivity.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Lists the cells of a run's or a dataset's decision record, newest first', and enumerates the returned content (heading, body, phase, typed blocks, superseded flag). It is clearly distinguishable from the write-side sibling write_note and from other list_* tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Read it before writing a note, so a decision already recorded is revised rather than repeated', which routes the agent to read before write_note. It also names a specific follow-up path (pass cell_id to read one cell whole) and an example invocation.

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