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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that only active and upcoming iterations are returned, that terminology may differ for future trackers, and that Linear returns an empty list. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not specify response shape or ordering.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the resource, explaining filtering and integration, and noting the Linear edge case. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to filter, how results connect to another tool, and the main edge case. It could be more explicit about the exact structure of the returned iteration objects, but it does mention 'ref' and gives enough context for practical use.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, including the query filter example. The description adds the cross-tool note about passing the iteration ref to poker.game.tasks.import, but this relates more to output usage than to parameter semantics. Therefore, the description does not significantly enrich parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('iterations of a connected issue tracker'), with concrete examples such as Jira sprints and a clear distinction from sibling tools like poker.sources.list. It also specifies that only active and upcoming iterations are returned.

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 explains how to use the query parameter for filtering, tells the user to pass the iteration ref to poker.game.tasks.import, and provides an explicit alternative for Linear (search by text) since it returns an empty list. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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