List decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: results are scoped to "this agent's" decisions and are returned newest first. It stops short of covering pagination, whether pending decisions appear, or what a returned record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler, and the ordering behavior is placed where an agent will read it first. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

This is a low-complexity, three-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, so the bar is modest. Still, an agent lacks guidance on result volume, default page size, and whether the verdict filter is applied before or after the agent scoping — gaps that a tool in an approval pipeline should close.

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 67% — limit and tradingAccountId are documented in the schema while verdict relies on its enum alone. The description adds nothing about any of the three parameters (no default limit restatement, no explanation of verdict filtering, no note that tradingAccountId narrows the agent-scoped list), so it fails to compensate for the partial coverage.

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 gives a verb and resource ("recent decisions") plus an ordering guarantee ("newest first"), so the agent knows this is a listing read. However, "decisions" is left undefined and there is no explicit contrast with get_decision or wait_for_decision, so the agent must infer the distinction from the tool names alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_decision (single item) or wait_for_decision (blocking wait), and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the word "list" and the sibling names.

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