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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: newest-updated-first ordering, trimmed result shape, cross-project reach of query, and the distinction between reference and title. It does not mention pagination semantics (limit/offset behavior) or result-count limits, which are relevant for a search tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and row shape first, then scoping, then field semantics. Every sentence adds information; the only slight clutter is the parenthetical field list, but it earns its place by documenting the return shape in the absence of an output schema.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates returned fields, ordering, and scoping rules, which covers most of what an agent needs. It omits pagination behavior and result-count/limit interaction, which are the remaining gaps for a search/list tool with limit and offset parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between query and projectId, defining the allowed status values in prose, and clarifying what reference means (batch-scoped external name, e.g. '1-2'), which the schema left unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List or find Works') and immediately distinguishes from the sibling get_work by stating it returns trimmed rows and telling the caller to use get_work for full detail. The row fields and ordering are spelled out, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns.

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 explains that projectId scopes to one project, that query searches across every reachable project or inside that project, and that get_work is the alternative for full detail. It does not spell out exclusions or edge cases (e.g., query+batchId combination behavior), so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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