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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the required `feedback:bugs:read` scope and the fact that filters use lenient matching. It omits pagination, default result limits, and ordering behavior, which are the main remaining unknowns.

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 tight sentences with the resource and board-slug scoping front-loaded, followed by filter behavior and the auth scope. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 5-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, filters, and permission scope but says nothing about result shape, paging, or default volume. An agent can call it, but cannot predict what comes back.

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 80%, so status, severity, account, and workspace are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that severity and status can be combined ('and/or'); boardSlug remains undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List bug reports on a feedback board') and scopes it by board slug, which implicitly separates it from fr_list_requests. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 conveys the obvious context (list bugs for a given board, optionally filtered) and adds the required API-key scope. It never says when to use fr_list_requests vs fr_list_bugs, nor any exclusion or prerequisite beyond the permission string.

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