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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a read-only listing behavior and the grouping by epic, which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, whether archived/inactive statuses are included, or how results are ordered — a modest gap for a simple list tool.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then immediately adds the most decision-relevant detail about how the result is used. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 one-parameter, no-nested-objects listing tool without annotations, the description gives enough essential context: what is listed, how it is grouped, and why the returned IDs matter. It doesn't describe the exact return payload, but for this simple tool the absence is not critical.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, spaceKey, with an example. The description adds context for the output (status IDs usable by create_issue/update_issue_status) but does not enrich the meaning of the parameter itself, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists'), names the exact resource ('statuses available in a space'), and adds the grouping detail ('by epic'). It also states the practical purpose of the output — IDs that create_issue/update_issue_status accept — which makes the tool's role unmistakable relative to siblings.

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 description clearly signals when this tool is useful: before calling create_issue or update_issue_status, since it returns the status IDs those tools accept. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name a when-not-to-use case, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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