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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying display order (position ascending), the Markdown nature of descriptions, and the included card counts and date fields.

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 purpose and immediately state the return behavior. There is no filler, redundant restating of the name, or repeated schema information.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists the key returned fields, including uid, name, description, dates, and card counts directly in the description. For a simple list tool with clear annotations and schema, nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to re-document parameters. It adds no extra semantic detail about project_id or updated_since, so a baseline score 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 says exactly what the tool does: 'List a project's epics' for resolving epic uids before get_epic or card assignment. It clearly distinguishes itself from singular get_epic and other sibling tools by framing the list as an enumeration.

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 gives an explicit trigger context: use it to resolve epic uids for get_epic and card assignment. It does not explicitly mention alternatives to avoid, but the intended use case is clear enough to guide selection.

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