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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the result is a single document to follow in the current project and it also surfaces a git branch name, which tells the agent what it will get back.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded with the useful content (what it returns, then the secondary use case). No filler, though the second sentence's chat-app caveat is a bit tangential to invocation.

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 artifacts (the build-prompt document and the branch name). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented two-parameter schema, little is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 both parameters (feature, venture) are documented in the schema itself, so the description is not required to carry parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 — retrieving the build prompts for a feature — and clarifies the resource with a parenthetical list (database, backend, frontend) plus the return of a git branch name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from list_features or start_feature.

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?

It gives one concrete usage context (a chat app without project access, to explain the plan) and labels the operation read-only, which implies when it is safe to call. However, it never says when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer when the agent wants, e.g., to modify or start a feature, so usage is only implied.

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