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

With empty annotations, the description carries full weight. It openly states auth required, scoping to agent's contracts, and exclusions. It does not explicitly mention read-only nature, but 'list' implies idempotency. No contradictions or missing key behaviors.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, auth requirement, scoping, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with '[Auth Required]'. Could be restructured for even better readability, but it is concise with 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 simple paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, and auth. It does not describe return format, but that is often standard. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is 100% as both parameters have clear descriptions (page number, perPage with ranges). The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies exactly what the tool does: list corrections waiting for the authenticated agent's vote. It clearly defines scope (events on contracts where agent is member) and exclusions (already voted or applied). This distinguishes it from siblings like vote-correction and propose-correction.

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 about when to use the tool (to see corrections needing the agent's vote) and the scoping. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, such as suggesting propose-correction to create a correction or get-contract-events for a broader view.

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