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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the burden is light. The description goes further by disclosing the returned fields (label, sortOrder, progress, isInitial/isTerminal) and the key non-obvious trait that results vary per workspace.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: identity and scope first, then what each status carries, then the prescriptive usage cue. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (label, sortOrder, progress, isInitial/isTerminal) and the cross-workspace variability caveat, which is exactly what the missing output schema would otherwise have had to convey.

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 schema descriptions are moot and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering/inputs are required.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List ... task statuses') scoped to the active workspace, and it explains what a status actually is (Kanban columns / the only permitted status labels). An agent can distinguish this from list_tasks, get_task_status_history, or list_custom_fields 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?

Gives an explicit trigger with rationale: 'Call this before setting a status on a workspace you have not seen: the set is per workspace and is not the same everywhere.' That implies the when-not case (already-known workspace) but never names a sibling alternative or states exclusions outright.

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