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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the description adds real value by disclosing that the sprint is created in 'planned' state and that tracking requires a separate start_sprint call. It omits permissions/auth requirements, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, each doing distinct work: trigger, resulting state plus next step, and synonym disambiguation. No filler and the usage condition 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?

The lifecycle behavior is well covered and annotations carry the safety profile, but with 0% schema description coverage on four parameters and no output schema, the description leaves the caller guessing about field meaning and requiredness. Adequate, not complete.

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 description coverage is 0% for four parameters, and the description never explains name, goal, startsAt, or endsAt — not even that name is the sole required field or how the date bounds behave. It cannot lean on the schema here, so the gap is significant.

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 ('Creates the sprint') and pins down the resulting state ('planned'), which distinguishes it from start_sprint and complete_sprint in the sibling list. An agent can select it without opening the 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?

Explicitly gives the trigger condition ('when the user wants to plan a new sprint'), names the follow-up alternative ('call start_sprint separately when ready to begin tracking'), and resolves vocabulary ambiguity (focus/sprint/cycle/iteration/week). Nothing is left to inference.

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