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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the returned column set plus a 'Plan gate: changeControl (ENTERPRISE+)' prerequisite, which is the kind of constraint annotations cannot express. It omits pagination behavior, which the schema's limit/cursor imply but never explain.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then filters, then return shape, then routing alternatives, then the plan gate. Every clause carries information; the only near-redundancy is restating the status filter values structure that the schema already enumerates.

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 responsibly enumerates returned row fields, plus it discloses the enterprise plan gate and the two preferred alternatives. The remaining gap is pagination/cursor usage for a list tool, which no other structured field supplies.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It names projectId and status as optional filters (and the enum values live in the schema), but cursor and limit are never explained in prose beyond the schema's own 'Default 50, max 100.' Two of four parameters get no semantic help.

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+resource ('List change requests') with immediate distinction from the two most confusable siblings, get_change_request and submit_cr_review. An agent can tell what this does and what it is not without opening any 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?

Explicit routing: 'PREFER get_change_request for full detail incl. reviews' and 'PREFER submit_cr_review to act on a SUBMITTED/UNDER_REVIEW CR you are a designated reviewer for.' It states when to choose each alternative and even the precondition (designated reviewer) for the action tool.

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