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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a retrospective review of failure residue rather than a discovery tool, which is useful framing, but it does not disclose matching semantics, result ordering, or how the three filters interact.

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 filler, and the alternative-tool guidance is tightly packed. The ordering is slightly off, however, in that the usage trigger precedes any statement of what the tool actually returns or does.

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 read-only lookup with three optional filters and no output schema, the description never indicates what comes back (result records? counts? statuses?) or how broadly the optional filters narrow the search. Routing is complete, but the return-shape gap leaves an agent with residual uncertainty.

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 are already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about outcome, closure_class, or retirement_status values or their combination behavior, so the baseline of 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?

The description frames the tool entirely around when to use it, only obliquely revealing what it does via the closing phrase 'reviewing prior failure residue.' There is no explicit verb+resource statement such as 'retrieve negative results matching an outcome/closure/retirement state,' so an agent must infer the operation from the name and schema. It is distinguishable from siblings by routing, but the core purpose is left implicit.

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?

It states the triggering condition ('before retrying a path that may already have failed, been retired or reached a negative conclusion') and explicitly names three alternatives with the condition that selects each: commons_blocked_actions for stopping boundaries, commons_disputes for contested targets, and commons_opportunities for new work. This is unusually complete routing guidance.

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