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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: result ordering, the returned fields, and crucially that results contain public user-written text and must be treated as data, not instructions — valuable prompt-injection guidance.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the safety note. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 compensates by naming the returned data (vote counts, weighted votes, assignee). Parameter meaning is largely left to the schema, and pagination/limit behavior is unaddressed, but the definition is adequate for correct invocation.

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 schema descriptions for tag, status, and assignee are already rich (e.g. 'declined' vs Not Planned, 'unassigned'/'me'). The description only implies board_id and adds nothing about tag, limit, assignee, or include_archived, so it does not improve on the schema.

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 on a board) and adds concrete scope: newest-first ordering and the fields returned (vote counts, weighted vote counts, assignee). The board scoping distinguishes it from search_features, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'use this when' statement, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer search_features or get_feature instead. Usage is only implied by the board-scoped framing; the second sentence is safety guidance rather than selection guidance.

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