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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the non-obvious 500-task cap and the taskTruncated=true signal. It still does not say whether the tree is deep (subtasks) or how ordering works, so it is not fully rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource, then lists optional enrichments and the cap. It is dense and information-packed, but the stacked parenthetical and semicolon clause make it slightly harder to scan than a clean multi-sentence form.

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 carries the burden of describing the payload, and it does so well by enumerating included entities and task fields plus the truncation flag. It omits nesting depth, ordering, and whether milestones/sprints carry their own children, leaving minor gaps for a composite read tool.

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 both optional flags are already documented, and the description's gloss ('each task's predecessor/successor edges', 'the per-task brief') is roughly equivalent to what the schema says. Baseline 3 is correct where the schema carries the parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') plus a precisely enumerated resource ('project + epics + sprints + tasks + milestones'), and the phrase 'full plan tree in one call' distinguishes it from the granular siblings get_epic, get_sprint, list_tasks and get_subtree. An agent can route to it without opening a schema.

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 identifies the situation that selects an alternative — exceeding the 500-task cap means 'fall back to list_tasks for paginated reads' — which is explicit routing guidance. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_subtree or the individual list_* tools, so it stops short of the when/when-not/alternatives ideal.

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