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 discloses admin access requirement and conditional token need, and hints at workflow behavior via the review loop. It does not cover error scenarios, idempotency, or response characteristics, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and access condition; the second provides workflow context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, access constraints, and usage workflow. It omits response structure and failure modes, but these are less critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 description adds context about the admin_token parameter ('requires admin_token when ORIGINGRID_ADMIN_TOKEN is set'), mirroring the schema. It does not explain token format or value constraints. The workflow hint provides marginal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'List pending source-card contributions awaiting admin review' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'pending' and 'admin only', but does not explicitly contrast with other list tools like origingrid_list.

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 usage context: admin only, requires admin_token conditionally, and suggests a review loop ('list pending → origingrid_approve_contribution(id)'). However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives besides the linked approve tool.

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