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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the filtering dimensions beyond the schema, which is useful context, but doesn't disclose pagination defaults or return behavior — though the schema's pagination descriptions partially cover this.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and aliased resource, followed by filter dimensions. Efficient with no wasted words, though it could be tighter.

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?

A read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully-described schema; the description is minimally sufficient. It doesn't mention pagination behavior (the default fetches all pages automatically), which is relevant context hidden in the schema, but an agent could still 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%, so all eight parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description repeats the filter list (project, status, category, probability, impact) but adds no syntax, enum values, or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (project risks / risk register), clearly distinct from the many create/update/delete siblings. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the get/list_project_risk siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 description lists filters but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project_risk. In a catalog with hundreds of list_* and get_* tools, some routing context would help, but usage is implied for a filterable list.

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