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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination, filtering options, or result scope, which is the kind of context that would earn credit here.

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 clean sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that it verges on under-specification rather than demonstrating deliberate structure.

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 a full output schema, annotations covering safety, and a single fully documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate for invocation. It leaves gaps around result volume/pagination and how this list differs from other stakeholder-related tools, which a richer definition would close.

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 the single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as a UUID database id. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List stakeholders') scoped to a project, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like stakeholders_get or projects_align_stakeholders_to_stories, though the verb/resource pairing 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus stakeholders_get or projects-related stakeholder tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the listed siblings.

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