list_promotion_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably well: it declares read-only, states decisions are insert-only, gives ordering, and explains that reversal appears as a new 'rollback' verdict rather than a mutation. It does not cover pagination or return size, so not a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the read-only and ordering constraints are front-loaded before the insert-only rationale. Every clause contributes meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the semantics (immutable trail, rollback-as-new-verdict) an agent needs to interpret results. Minor gaps remain around pagination or trail length, but the definition is otherwise complete for a one-parameter listing tool.

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% for the single candidate_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — listing a candidate's verdict trail — and adds the ordering ('oldest first'), which an agent can act on directly. It does not name record_promotion_decision explicitly, but the 'insert-only' phrasing implicitly distinguishes this read tool from the write sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the trail is described as a record, so listing it is a read operation, which distinguishes it obliquely from record_promotion_decision. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use for...' guidance, and no alternatives are named.

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