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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are limited to 'cycles visibles' (permission/visibility scoping), and with no workspaceId the credential's workspace is used silently — a non-obvious default that would otherwise cause surprise. It omits pagination or ordering behaviour.

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, zero filler. The output fields and purpose come first, then the parameter caveat with its default, so the most decision-relevant 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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape, the scoping rule, and the default-workspace behaviour. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it marks workspaceId as optional, defines it as the workspace to operate in, names list_workspaces as the way to discover valid values, and states the fallback (the credential's workspace) when omitted. That is everything needed to supply or skip the parameter correctly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista los cycles visibles') and enumerates the fields returned (id, número, proyecto, fechas), plus the reason to list them (assigning to issues). It also points to the sibling list_workspaces for the workspace dimension, though it never contrasts itself with save_cycle or list_issues, which are the nearest neighbours.

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 purpose clause 'para asignar a issues' implies when to reach for this tool, and 'list_workspaces los enumera' routes the agent for the workspace lookup. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or exclusion (e.g. versus save_cycle for creating cycles), so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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