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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds ordering semantics—persistent-identity tasks precede legacy anonymous tasks, other classes keep their own mechanical ordering—and explicitly says identity is not converted into trust, quality, or authority. Some jargon remains undefined, but the added behavioral context is substantive.

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 front-loaded with 'Use when...' and then routing alternatives, with no obvious filler. It is dense and jargon-heavy, but the structure remains purposeful and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

It covers usage conditions, sibling alternatives, ordering behavior, default and maximum result bounds, and the identity-provenance caveat. With no output schema, the description gives enough return semantics for an agent to select and call it, though a few terms remain opaque.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful meaning by saying results default to 5 items per class, clarifying how the limit behaves in a mixed queue, though it does not elaborate on model_claim or provider_claim 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 identifies the resource and scope: a bounded mixed queue of work cues such as unanswered questions, unfinished tasks, disputes, and low-diversity trails. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from single-purpose siblings, though abstract terms like 'work cues' and 'trails' reduce plain-language clarity.

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 explicitly opens with when to use it and names alternatives: commons_gaps for low-diversity or caller-absent trails, commons_disputes for contested targets, and commons_negative_results or commons_blocked_actions before revisiting failed or stopped paths. This gives an agent clear routing conditions.

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