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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying that this is a read-only retrieval. 'Get an epic in full' implies no side effects and lists the content returned, which is useful. It does not disclose behavior when both or neither identifier is supplied, but this is a relatively low-risk read operation.

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, no filler. The first sentence tells the agent what the tool returns, and the second explains how to provide the identifier. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 retrieval with two optional-in-schema parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core needs: what is returned and how to specify the target epic. The only real gap is that neither parameter is marked required in the schema, while the description says to provide one; the agent must infer that one identifier is needed for a successful call.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, which establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explicitly framing the two parameters as alternatives ('Provide either... or...') and by giving a concrete example of the short key format. This helps an agent understand how to satisfy the tool's identifier requirement.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get an epic in full', and enumerates exactly what is included: description, dependencies, sub-tasks, open questions and decisions. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_epics, get_task, or get_open_question by describing a singular, full epic retrieval.

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 intended use is implied strongly: call this when you need the complete epic rather than a list of epics. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_epics or when to prefer key versus epicId beyond providing either, so the guidance is adequate but not fully developed.

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