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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the result set spans every track 'taken in turns', each step is annotated with its track, and ordering puts hard-lever steps first. It stops short of describing pagination/return shape or how ties are broken, but that is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. The nested parenthetical makes it slightly harder to parse than necessary, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and one optional param, the description conveys the conceptual shape of the result (steps grouped by track, ordered by lever priority). It still omits the 'count' behavior, the default size, and what a 'hard-lever' step is, which an agent needs to use it confidently.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter, 'count' (1-20), with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no default, no meaning, no note that it caps the returned list. With low schema coverage the description was expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 identifies the resource ('open steps of the current milestone') and its ordering ('hard-lever steps first'), so the general purpose is discernible. But there is no explicit verb ('returns'/'lists') and heavy domain jargon ('tracks', 'hard-lever steps') is never unpacked, leaving the agent to infer what the output actually is. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_plan, get_path, or get_planning_context.

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 trailing clause 'the candidates for today's main step' implies the use case — picking today's focus — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many planning siblings. Usage must be inferred from the phrase rather than stated.

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