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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load; it discloses the response shape (grouped by epic, each status 'has a category... and its categoryId') and the meaning of the four category values regardless of naming. It does not state permissions, pagination, or ordering behavior, but the semantic disclosure beyond the schema is substantial.

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 front-loaded sentence pairs the core action with its integration points, and nothing is wasted. The nested em-dash parentheticals make it dense and slightly hard to parse, but the ordering is sensible.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, how it is grouped, what the category values mean, and which sibling tools consume the ids and categoryId. Auth requirements and pagination are the only meaningful omissions.

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% for the single spaceKey parameter and the schema already documents it ('from list_spaces'). The description adds no syntax or format detail about spaceKey itself, only about how the returned ids are consumed downstream, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the statuses in a space') plus the grouping shape ('grouped by epic'). It further disambiguates by naming the sibling tools the returned ids feed into (create_issue/edit_issue_status) and the filter list_issues uses, so the agent can place it among siblings without opening a 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?

Usage context is clear: this is the lookup for status ids and epic grouping before mutating issues, and it names create_issue/edit_issue_status and list_issues' statusCategoryId as the consumers. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., list_epics vs. this tool for epic data), so it falls just short of a 5.

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