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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what the tool returns (each question's key, status, and resolution note), which is helpful. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, but the verb 'list' implies non-mutation. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose and the parameter alternatives, the second describes the return values. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter alternatives, and return fields. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps like pagination or behavior when no questions exist are not critical for this simple tool, so a small deduction is fair.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the parameter meanings ('UUID' and 'short key') that are already in the schema's descriptions. It adds the clarification that either parameter can be provided, which slightly reinforces the 'alternative' note already in the schema, but does not add material new semantics.

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 action ('List') and resource ('open questions of an epic'), which clearly separates this collection operation from siblings like get_open_question, create_open_question, and update_open_question. The scope is unambiguous and an agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use it (when you need open questions for an epic) and gives parameter usage instructions ('Provide either epicId or epicKey'). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'use this instead of get_open_question', leaving the choice to inference from the verb 'list'.

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