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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: a hard return cap of 100 sprints and a synonym map (focus/sprint/cycle/iteration/week) that affects how the agent interprets user intent. It does not say what happens when more than 100 exist (truncation vs pagination), which is the one remaining 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition and the routing decision before the limit and vocabulary notes. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the scope, the alternative, the result-size bound and the terminology mapping. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate in the schema. The synonym note adds interpretive value about the domain vocabulary but no additional parameter-level meaning is needed or missing.

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 ('List Sprints' / asks about sprints in general) and explicitly scopes it to past, planned, active and archived states. It also names the sibling it is not for ('For just the running one, prefer get_active_sprint'), so an agent can separate it from get_active_sprint without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when the user asks about sprints in general') plus the exclusion and the named alternative get_active_sprint for the running-sprint case. This is a complete when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing statement.

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