list_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses ordering (descending by creation time), that status filtering and truncation happen MCP-side rather than in the API, and that the header reports the total count. It omits any note on permissions or failure behavior, but the read-only listing nature is clear.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then example queries, then parameters, then a behavioral note. Well-organized and generally tight, though the example-query block adds length that could be trimmed for a simple list tool.

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 structure needn't be explained, and the description still notes the header total count. For a 3-param filtered list tool the coverage is essentially complete; only explicit permission/edge-case behavior is absent.

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 0% and parameters carry no descriptions or enums, so the description must compensate. It does: monitor_id (limit to a monitor), status with the enum values suggested/adopted/rejected, and limit with default 20 are all explained with meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb+resource: viewing historical follow-sell decision records, with scope (filterable by monitor and status). The 'list' semantics are clearly distinct from the create_decision/review_decision/adopt_decision/reject_decision siblings that mutate state.

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 example user questions ('what decisions did I make recently', 'which suggestions are unhandled', 'iPhone decision history') convey when to reach for this tool. Usage context is concrete, though no explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given.

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