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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the burden is light. The description adds the PRO+ plan-gate requirement and describes the linked-task payload it returns, both of which go beyond what annotations declare.

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 compact fragments, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the gating constraint. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned linked-task fields. Combined with the plan-gate disclosure, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this 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?

There is a single required sprintId parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of semantics — but it says nothing about the id's format or source. With one param this is an acceptable minimum, not a strength.

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 ('get') and resource ('one sprint') and enumerates the linked-task fields returned. It naturally contrasts with the sibling list_sprints and update_sprint, though it never names them explicitly.

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 'Plan gate: sprints (PRO+)' note tells the agent a prerequisite, which is useful context for when the call will succeed. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this versus list_sprints or update_sprint, so usage is only implied.

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