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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: descriptors carry authFields and hint, secret-marked fields must be flagged as passing through the conversation and never echoed back. That credential-handling policy is a real addition beyond annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, with the inventory purpose front-loaded and procedural instructions after. Slightly dense with parentheticals and imperative asides, but no sentence is 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?

With no input params and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape and it does: authFields, hint, and secret flags. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description instead characterizes the response payload's fields (authFields, hint, secret), which is useful orientation even though no input semantics are needed.

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?

Names the resource precisely (import sources for Retasc: Linear, Jira, Asana, ClickUp, Shortcut) and states exactly what each descriptor returns, so the agent knows it is a static capability/inventory read. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_import_targets, list_import_statuses, import_history, and run_import.

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 sequences itself: 'Start here before any other import tool,' which routes the agent ahead of run_import and the other import siblings. It also gives concrete downstream procedure (ask for authFields by label, use hint to guide the human), which no other tool covers.

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