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 useful behavioral context beyond that: the fact that a status ('Pending Approval') can be read but not set by any status-writing tool, which prevents an agent from attempting an invalid write.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns. The second sentence is a useful caveat but its placement slightly interrupts the value/label content; overall there is no filler.

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, single-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed (status values with labels), the caveat on one value, and the safety profile is handled by annotations. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single board_id parameter is documented ('From list_boards'), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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?

The description names a specific resource ('canonical status values') and clarifies what is returned ('default English feature labels and Known issues bug labels'), which goes beyond the tool name. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but no sibling appears to overlap the status-listing role, so an agent can select it confidently.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent should call this to discover valid status values before setting one. The caveat about 'Pending Approval' hints at the intended usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, ordering, or alternative named.

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