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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds valuable behavior: the team-role access restriction and the SPI interpretation rule (SPI < 1 = behind plan), which an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

It is front-loaded with the burn-up concept and packs the return contents, the diagnostic question, and the access restriction into three tight sentences with no filler. Parentheticals are used efficiently to cover project-vs-workspace scope and SPI direction.

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, but the description explains the returned content well enough (scope vs done by day, planned vs earned percent, SPI). Safety is covered by annotations and the access restriction is stated, though the exact response shape and row granularity are left implicit.

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 100%, so all three parameters, including utcOffsetMinutes, are already fully documented. The description reinforces that days means a trailing window and that omitting projectId selects the whole workspace, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific artifact (burn-up), the scope (one project or the whole workspace), and the exact metrics returned (scope vs done day by day, planned vs earned percent, SPI). An agent can distinguish this reporting tool from siblings like get_earned_value 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?

It gives clear usage context through the framing question ("are we on track / speeding up / slipping?") and a role restriction ("Team roles only"). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or when-not to use this one, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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