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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the 200-slot limit and the default window behavior, which is beyond annotations. It also explains that overlaps are by design, reducing surprise. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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?

The description is tightly written, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It covers scope, behavior, limits, and requirements in a few sentences with no redundancy.

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 explains what a slot is, the return cap, and the date window behavior. It also notes the workspace requirement. It doesn't specify sorting or field details, but for a list operation this is adequate. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 parameters are well documented. The description reinforces the defaults (start_date defaults to start of month, end_date to start_date + 6 months) and clarifies the overlapping behavior. It adds context about the cap and workspace requirement that complements the schema rather than repeating it.

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 (roadmap slots), and the scope (a project's slots overlapping a date window). It also clarifies what a slot is and that overlaps are intentional, distinguishing it from sibling operations like create/update/delete. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for use: the default date window, the 200-slot cap with a hint to narrow the window, and the Pro/trial workspace requirement. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the read-only nature is evident, and the guidance on when to call it (to list slots) is implicit and sufficient.

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