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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned payload categories (tasks, repos, live branches, commits), but says nothing about auth needs, result size, or how the two identifiers are resolved. With annotations carrying safety, 3 is appropriate.

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 capability front-loaded and the use case appended; nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 usefully sketches the return contents, and the read-only safety profile comes from annotations. It is complete enough to call correctly, though a note on how key vs featureID resolve to one feature would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so both parameters (key and featureID, plus their mutual exclusivity and accepted key formats) are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (returns) and resource (a feature's code) and enumerates the contents: tasks, repositories, live branches, and commits by task keys. Assuming 'code' here does not literally mean source, it is distinguishable from plain feature_context. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the very similar task_code_context sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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 sentence 'Useful for checking a feature's spec against the implementation' gives an implied usage scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing among near-neighbors like feature_context, task_code_context, or repo_context.

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