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

The description adds several critical behavioral details beyond the read-only hint provided in the annotations. It specifies the pagination mechanism ('Cursor pagination (last-id)'), lists all returned fields (id, name, goal, taskCount, etc.), and discloses a feature gating requirement ('Plan gate: sprints (PRO+)').

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?

The description is extremely concise, front-loading the primary action and key constraints (filter, pagination, return fields) without unnecessary filler. It uses efficient language to convey complex operational details.

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?

Despite not having an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It details the required input scoping (project), the available filtering options, the navigational method (cursor pagination), and the output structure (field names). Nothing essential is missing for successful invocation.

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?

Given the low schema coverage (25%), the description provides essential semantic context that compensates heavily. It confirms the exact data structure and contents of the return value, specifies the cursor usage, and lists all available status filters, which is critical information for the agent.

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?

The description clearly states the purpose: 'List sprints in a project.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('sprints'), immediately distinguishing it from other list tools like list_tasks or list_issues.

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 provides clear contextual guidance by outlining the valid filters (PLANNING/ACTIVE/COMPLETED/CANCELLED). While it doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of X,' the action verb 'List' strongly implies it is for batch retrieval, contrasting with a potential single-sprint lookup tool.

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