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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine behavioral context: results are ordered missable-first and include a completion percentage. With no output schema, that return-shape detail is the main thing the description must carry, and it does so concisely.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the input condition, then the output contract (missable first, completion percentage). Nothing is wasted and no filler precedes the substance.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the input source and the return ordering/summary. Minor gaps remain — the shape of returned items (ids vs. names) and how unknown or partial ids are handled are unstated.

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 one better by documenting the provenance and expected format of completed_ids (the tracker's export button). The optional category parameter is only documented in the schema, not the description, which keeps it from a 5.

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 states a specific verb+resource: take completed ids and return the remaining items plus a completion percentage. That is clearly distinct from the sibling get_checklist (which presumably returns the full list), though it never names that sibling to make the split explicit.

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 tells the agent exactly where the required input comes from — the tracker's 'Copy progress for AI' button — which is a real prerequisite that prevents malformed calls. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over get_checklist or what to do if ids are stale/invalid.

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