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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious domain behavior beyond the annotations — that each item is vetted by a referee and paid on devnet with test money — which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before acting on results.

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 front-loaded sentence covering what is listed and the key domain mechanic, with no filler. The semicolon clause about referee checks and devnet payment is dense but earns its place.

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 no-argument list tool with no output schema, the description omits what the returned items look like (fields, identifiers, pagination, or how items are ranked). Combined with the ambiguity against knos_milestones, an agent would still need to call it to learn the shape of the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to explain inputs.

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 names a specific resource set ('open milestones and tasks') and its audience ('a person or agent can work on'), which is more concrete than the title alone. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as knos_milestones, knos_ready, or knos_projects, so the boundary is left for the agent to infer.

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 phrase 'a person or agent can work on' implies this is the entry point for picking up work, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With ~20 siblings including a knos_milestones tool, the missing routing guidance is a real gap.

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