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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the read-only nature, so no additional side-effect disclosure is needed. The description adds output details but no extra behavioral traits beyond what the annotation covers.

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 compact and information-dense, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, includes useful output specifics, and provides cross-referencing in a single sentence.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned data (statuses and approval counts) and stating the prerequisite and cross-tool usage. It could mention pagination or filtering, but for this simple list operation it is reasonably complete.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter (specId) as 'Public ID (GUID) of the API specification.' The description does not add further parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is complete.

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 the action (list), the resource (merge requests of a spec), and the key output details (status values and reviewer approval counts). It also distinguishes itself from get_merge_request by indicating that list is for browsing/finding IDs while get_merge_request is for individual reviews.

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 says when to use this tool ('browse merge requests or find an id') and names the alternative for a different need ('for one with its reviews use get_merge_request'). It also notes the prerequisite 'Requires project context,' giving agents actionable guidance.

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