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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — an authentication requirement and a result-size disclosure ("up to 50 summary rows") — but the 50-row claim sits awkwardly against the schema's documented max of 100, and nothing is said about paging behavior or response shape.

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 the resource and filter front-loaded; there is no filler. The final sentence is slightly at odds with the schema's limit semantics, which keeps it from being a clean 5.

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 five-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, auth, and an approximate result size, which is the minimum an agent needs. It omits what a "summary row" actually contains and how pagination terminates, both of which the agent would want before iterating.

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 every parameter including state, limit, and offset is already documented in the schema. The description restates the state filter and the default row count but adds no new meaning, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 pull requests on a repo") plus the state filter, so an agent immediately knows what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling merjax_search_prs, leaving the agent to infer which one to pick for filtered browsing.

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?

Usage is only implied: the state enumeration and "Authenticated callers only" signal a read/browse scenario and a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. merjax_search_prs, merjax_get_pr, or merjax_list_ready_to_merge. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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