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

With no annotations, description discloses operator-only restriction, default pending status, and lifecycle (approve/reject/sign). Does not mention pagination or return structure, but overall adequate.

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, front-loaded with key phrase 'KB-refresh review queue', no redundant 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 list tool with no output schema and 3 parameters, description covers purpose, usage context, and basic parameter semantics. Lacks details on return format but sufficient for common use.

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?

0% schema coverage; description adds meaning by stating default status 'pending' (though schema lacks default) and implies operator_key is required. Does not explain limit or other status values.

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?

Description clearly states it lists auto-scraped candidate roadmap signals from a KB-refresh review queue, with default status pending. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning approve/reject with review_signal_candidate and cron signing.

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?

Specifies 'Operator-only' and connects to review_signal_candidate and weekly cron. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_kb_signals, but provides clear context for when to use.

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