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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the plan is 'computed nightly from the project's own data' and ordered by business impact. This tells the agent the data may be refreshed only nightly and that ordering is deterministic by impact, going beyond the annotation.

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 short sentences front-load the core definition immediately and add only the useful cadence/data-source detail. Every phrase earns its place; no filler.

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 retrieval tool with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description gives enough context: what the plan contains, how it is ordered, and that it is computed nightly. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 fully documents the single parameter, project_id, including its type, source ('Ranking id from list_projects'), and exclusivity. The description adds no parameter-level info, but the schema already covers it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 explains the resource as 'the project's prioritized to-do list' and enumerates what it contains ('what to brief, which AI prompts you're losing, what's technically at risk'), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not state a verb explicitly or name sibling tools, but the content is specific enough to distinguish from other report-style get_* tools.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs the project's prioritized action plan, ordered by business impact. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when another tool should be used instead, so usage guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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