get_pending_estimates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns 'estimates awaiting actuals' and explains the feedback loop purpose. This adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the intent of improving accuracy over time. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence immediately states the main action, the second links to a related tool, and the third explains the purpose. No fluff or redundancy. 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?

The description explains what the tool returns and its role in the feedback loop, but it does not specify ordering, date range, or pagination behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description could be more complete about the returned data structure. Adequate for a simple list tool but with gaps.

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% for the one parameter (limit), which already has a description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameter well.

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 it 'List recent estimates that have not yet received actual-hour feedback.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like record_actual (which submits feedback) and accuracy_trend (which shows trends). It exactly tells what the tool does.

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 says 'Use this to close the estimation feedback loop and improve accuracy over time' and suggests pairing with record_actual. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is strong but could be more complete.

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