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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses permission scoping ('every space the caller can read'), ordering (by space key), page size cap, and the hasNextPage continuation signal. It doesn't discuss auth specifics or failure modes, but the read-only nature and pagination behavior are clear.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then pagination, then the return shape. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the returned fields (id, name, spaceKey, isDefault, status with its enum values) plus pagination and ordering is exactly what an agent needs to call and consume this tool. Nothing essential 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool meaning the schema lacks: it explains that the returned epic id is what list_issues' epicId filter accepts and what isDefault denotes. That linkage is genuinely useful beyond the schema text.

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 (Lists) and resource (epics), plus the scope variants (one space or every readable space). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_issues and list_spaces, and even names the field that feeds list_issues' epicId filter.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: omit spaceKey to span all spaces, pass page+1 for the next page, and check hasNextPage because pages cap at 50. It doesn't state when NOT to use it (e.g., when get_issue is a better fit), so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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