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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: deterministic ordering, an optional completed filter, and the domain-model distinction from Task.isMilestone. It stops short of explaining pagination or result limits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and ordering before secondary detail. The return-field enumeration is somewhat listy but justified given there is no output schema. No wasted preamble.

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 usefully enumerates returned fields and the url semantics, and gives ordering and filtering. The notable omission is pagination behavior around cursor/limit, which matters for a paged list tool but is not fatal given the annotations cover the rest.

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% (only limit is documented), so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'completed' and project scope but leaves 'cursor' completely unexplained, a meaningful gap for a paginated list. Partial compensation warrants a middling score.

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 and resource ('List milestones in a project') plus the ordering ('order asc then dueDate asc'), and explicitly separates these first-class Milestone rows from Task.isMilestone. An agent can identify the operation and scope without opening the 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?

The description notes the optional completed filter and clarifies the Milestone-row vs Task.isMilestone distinction, which implies usage. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_milestone or a task-level filter, and gives no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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