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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by noting that the data is 'recomputed live' and explaining the composition ('one entry per top-level epic with recursive descendant progress' and 'triage strip'). There is no contradiction. A slight deduction because it doesn't discuss potential performance implications of live recomputation, but annotations lower the burden.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a concise list of included metrics. It then provides usage guidance in the same sentence without waste. Every phrase contributes value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's zero parameters, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how to proceed after using it. It does not need to detail return values because the output schema exists. It also provides useful context about live recomputation and the triage strip, making it complete for selection and invocation.

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 has zero parameters, making schema coverage 100% vacuously. The description cannot add parameter-level meaning because there are none. Baseline for 0 params is 4. It does describe the output structure, which helps but is not directly parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it returns a projects overview of the caller's board with detailed per-epic progress and a triage strip. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Ticket Projects'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing to ticket_list/ticket_get for drilling into IDs.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('before planning a session to see initiative health at a glance') and provides an alternative for further drill-down ('use ticket_list/ticket_get to drill into any id it returns'). This gives clear context and alternatives, satisfying the guideline requirement.

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