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

Annotations already cover read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to restate those. It adds value by mentioning 'board order' (a specific ordering behavior) and by tying the result to issue creation/movement. This is useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage hint is placed as a second sentence. Every word serves a purpose.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what it returns (states in board order) and how to use the result. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter (team) with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional detail about the team parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'workflow states', and the scope 'of one team', with the added detail of 'in board order'. It also connects to downstream usage ('when creating or moving an issue'), making it unmistakable among sibling list tools like list_teams or list_projects.

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 states a use case: 'Use a state name from this list when creating or moving an issue.' This implies when to use it, though it does not contrast it with alternatives. Since the sibling set is dominated by other resource-specific list tools, the context is clear enough; a slightly more explicit 'when you need state names' would push it to 5.

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