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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the feature-gate and access requirement, and the shape of returned rows (field name + type joined for context).

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with scope and default, followed by return shape and prerequisites. No filler; every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 steps in to describe row composition and covers the feature/access prerequisites for a read tool. It omits pagination/result-limit behavior and does not fully define what 'populated' excludes, which are minor gaps for a bounded per-project list.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden; it usefully documents entityType (default TASK, three allowed values) beyond the bare enum. However projectId is left entirely to inference, so it only partly compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus a precise resource (populated custom-field values) scoped to one project. The word 'populated' and the contrast with field definitions distinguishes it from list_custom_field_defs and the set_* write siblings without naming them.

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?

Gives clear operating context: default entityType=TASK, with PROJECT and PROPOSAL also valid, plus prerequisites (PRO+ customFields feature and project read access). It stops short of stating when to prefer a sibling tool or any exclusions, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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