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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: results are restricted to 'visible' milestones and an omitted workspaceId silently defaults to the credential's workspace — an important implicit scoping rule.

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 with no waste: purpose and returned fields first, then the optional parameter and its default. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

A read-only single-optional-param list tool with no output schema; the description covers purpose, returned fields, default scoping, and where to find workspace ids. Nothing an agent needs 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 must carry the burden and does: workspaceId is optional, denotes the workspace to operate in, is defaulted from the credential when absent, and list_workspaces is named as the way to discover valid values.

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 (lista) and resource (milestones) plus the scope ('visibles') and the returned fields (id, nombre, proyecto), and even the downstream purpose (asignar a issues). An agent can distinguish it from save_milestone or list_projects without opening any 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?

Explains the meaning and optionality of workspaceId and routes to list_workspaces for enumeration, plus states the fallback when it's omitted. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance against siblings, but the context for invoking it is clear.

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