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

The readOnlyHint annotation is complemented by additional context: the tool reveals connection-dependent behavior and the meaning of an empty result. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the semantic impact of the output, which is valuable for the agent.

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 front-load the core purpose and include both usage dependency and edge-case interpretation. No filler or redundancy—every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (trackers and their capabilities), when to call it, and how to interpret an empty list. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly and understand outcomes.

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 only parameter (team_id) is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, including guidance to call retro.teams.list first when multiple teams exist. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 clearly states 'Returns the issue trackers connected to a team' and specifies what each tracker can do (search, list iterations, write estimates). It distinguishes itself from sibling poker tools by positioning as the first call that other tools depend on, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this first — the other poker tools depend on what is connected,' providing definitive when-to-use guidance. It also gives an edge-case directive: an empty list means tasks must be added manually via poker.game.tasks.add, covering exclusions.

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