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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: authentication is required, the result set is capped at 50 summary rows, and filtering by state is supported. This is meaningful operational information without being redundant.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The main purpose and scope are front-loaded, and each sentence adds necessary information: what is listed, how it is filtered, who can call it, and what is returned.

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 read-only list operation with rich parameter schemas, the description is largely complete: it covers the action, scope, authentication, state filter, and result size. Pagination is implicit through offset and nextOffset in the schema, and there is no output schema, so the 'summary rows' hint gives some shape. Missing only explicit guidance on paging behavior and sorting, which is a minor gap.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters and their meanings. The description adds a general mention of state filtering and a 50-row cap, but does not add anything beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('List pull requests on a repo') and the resource scope, with an explicit state filter. It is not a tautology and is readily distinguishable from get_pr and repo_list_issues, though it does not explicitly name the sibling search_prs as an alternative.

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 only usage guidance is 'Authenticated callers only,' which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use instruction. It does not explain when to prefer this tool over gluecron_search_prs, gluecron_get_pr, or repo_list_issues, nor does it provide any exclusion guidance.

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