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, but the description still adds real behavior: lenient trimmed/case-insensitive matching, pagination via page/size, `q` overriding other filters, and the required API-key scope. It doesn't describe the response item shape, which keeps it from 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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then filters, search mode, pagination, and auth scope. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 read-only paginated list with no output schema, the description covers filtering, search semantics, pagination, and auth scope. The only gap is return-shape/envelope detail, which is minor since readOnly list tools are predictable and account/workspace params are documented in the schema.

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?

With 78% schema coverage, baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the lenient normalized matching semantics for status/category/milestone (category and milestone have no schema descriptions at all) and the precedence rule for `q`. That meaningfully compensates for the coverage gap.

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 feature requests') plus scope ('on a feedback board (by board slug)'), which clearly separates it from fr_list_bugs and the fr_get_* siblings. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit guidance on the two modes: filter by status/category/milestone, or pass `q` to search titles instead. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g. fr_get_request for a single item), so it's clear context without full routing.

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