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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does well: it declares the operation is public, read-oriented, advisory, and has no formal decision impact. It does not mention output format or error conditions, but the non-mutating, non-authoritative nature is explicit.

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 two short sentences with no filler. Key qualifiers (public, read, advisory, non-veto, non-eligibility) are front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and limitations. It could be slightly stronger by naming the set_author_work_notice sibling or clarifying what 'history' contains, but nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter, slug, is fully documented in the schema with detail about immutable IDs and successor behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, matching the baseline.

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 names the resource ('public author coordination advice and history') and the action is clear from the tool name plus 'read before new experiments.' It distinguishes itself from mutation/decision tools by stating it is never a veto or a change to eligibility, though it does not name the setter sibling explicitly.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use signal ('read before new experiments') and clear exclusions ('never a veto, private feedback disclosure or change to formal eligibility'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool like set_author_work_notice, but the boundary is inferable.

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