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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint — that only Ready-to-build and In Progress features are returned, excluding other statuses — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result shape.

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?

A single compact sentence with the status scope front-loaded and no filler. Appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though extremely terse.

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 simple, read-only, single-optional-param list tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. No output schema exists, but a list tool's return is self-evident.

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 100% with a single documented 'venture' parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'optionally for one venture' usefully reinforces that filtering is optional, but adds no syntax or matching-behavior detail.

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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (features), and scopes the result to two named statuses (Ready to build, In Progress). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_ventures or get_build_instructions.

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 by the status scope: an agent can infer this is the tool for viewing build-ready or in-progress work. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives (e.g., how this differs from list_ventures), and no exclusions.

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