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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it explains that `done`/`not_applicable`/`traits` are ignored for projects, and that the sprint is packed into `minutes`. However, it doesn't disclose what 'sprint' means behaviorally or what the return shape looks like, which is a gap given no output schema.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds the free-tier/project distinction efficiently. It's compact and every clause earns its place, though the backtick-heavy style is slightly dense.

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 read-only tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage context (free tier vs project) but doesn't explain what the returned 'sprint' looks like or how 'tree order' is determined. An agent could call it correctly but might not know what to expect back. The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, but the return format is undocumented.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds the key semantic distinction that `done`, `traits`, and `not_applicable` are free-tier only and ignored for projects, which is valuable. But it doesn't add much beyond that, so baseline 3 is 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the next unlocked, unstarted steps in tree order plus a sprint packed into `minutes`. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_plan and get_step, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The mention of 'tree order' and 'sprint' adds useful specificity.

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?

The description gives clear context: it explains the free-tier vs project distinction and which parameters apply to anonymous callers. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of get_plan when you need next steps', but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when to use it. The 'Anonymous callers pass...' phrasing is a clear usage condition.

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