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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals result ordering and the scope exclusion, but says nothing about permissions, whether this is a safe read, pagination semantics, or what a result entry looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with zero filler. Every clause adds information.

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 low-complexity, fully documented, no-required-param list tool, the description covers scope and ordering adequately; it lacks only minor context such as pagination behavior and permission expectations.

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 all three parameters (limit, offset, status) are documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List delegated work') and adds scope detail: open jobs ordered before recent completions, personal todo items excluded. It clearly reads as a read-side listing tool, though it does not name the sibling it complements (e.g. work_get) or the inbox tools it defers to.

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: 'Personal todo items are excluded' hints the agent should use inbox_list for personal todos, but no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-work_get guidance is given. The ordering statement describes result shape rather than selection criteria.

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