List saved open-item checks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the call is free on both pricing tiers and is capped at 100 reports per page, which affects how an agent should plan paging and cost. It stops short of stating ordering or whether a total count is returned.

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 resource and returned fields come first and the cost/paging constraints follow. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description does some heavy lifting by naming the returned fields, but leaves ordering, total-count behavior, and how to advance pages unstated. Adequate for a minimal list tool, but an agent still has open questions about paging through results.

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%, so the bare 'limit' and 'offset' properties carry no documented meaning. 'Up to 100 reports per page' partially compensates by tying page size to the limit parameter and implying offset-based paging, but it never explains offset semantics or default page size (20).

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 (list) and resource (saved reports) and even enumerates the returned fields (ids, timestamps, review-group counts), which is more concrete than the vague title 'saved open-item checks'. It does not name or contrast with the obvious siblings (report_get, report_page, report_export_csv), so the agent must infer that this is the index-list call.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the siblings (report_get, report_page, report_export_csv) are referenced. 'Up to 100 reports per page' hints at paging but never tells the agent whether to page through this tool or use report_page instead.

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