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

Annotations already declare the tool safe (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description's burden is lighter. The description adds one behavioral detail—output includes target dates—but does not describe ordering, pagination, or error behavior.

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 one short, direct sentence with no filler. The key action and target resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 simple, read-only, single-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the return content. It does not describe the output structure in detail, but no output schema exists and the simple nature of the tool reduces the need for more.

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%, and the single parameter is already described as 'Project name, slug or id.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies a verb ('Return') and resource ('milestones on a project') and adds the relevant detail that target dates are included. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'list_milestones', which could be a broader or differently-scoped variant.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'list_milestones'. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or hints about which tool is appropriate for different scopes of milestone listing.

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