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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine new context: the required API-key scope `sprints:read` and the return shape ('array of full TaskDTO'). It does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior on large sprints, or whether completed/cancelled tasks are included.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: behavior first, return type second, auth scope last. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant fact (what is listed) is front-loaded.

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, the description's 'array of full TaskDTO' leaves the actual field set unknown, and the required sprintIdentifier format remains undefined. The auth-scope note is helpful, but for a 3-parameter tool with a 67% schema coverage gap the description does not fully close the loop.

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% and the two well-documented parameters (account, workspace) are already explained in the schema, so the description adds nothing there. The one undocumented parameter is the required `sprintIdentifier`, and the description does not clarify whether it accepts an ID, key, or exact name — the single most important semantic an agent needs.

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+scope: 'List all tasks currently in the sprint', which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from task-fetching tools like pm_get_task (single task) and pm_search_tasks (query-based). It stops short of naming a sibling or clarifying boundaries explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from 'currently in the sprint' alone that this is for sprint-scoped enumeration rather than pm_search_tasks or pm_get_task, and nothing tells it what a sprint must contain or whether completed sprints are valid targets.

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