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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — the org-wide scope and the exact fields returned (id, slug, name, status type, color, position) — which matters because there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about whether custom statuses vs default statuses are included, ordering guarantees, or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the return shape and the intended use of that return value. No filler, no restatement of the tool title.

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 present, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the returned fields with a concrete example set (In Review, Planned, In Progress, Completed). For a zero-parameter read-only lookup, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 at the input level; baseline 4 applies. The description instead usefully frames what the caller does with the output rather than with 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'List the post statuses configured for the organization' — which is unambiguous and distinct from every sibling (list_tags, list_post_tags, list_collections, list_buckets all operate on different resources). An agent can tell exactly what this returns 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 second sentence gives concrete downstream guidance: 'Use the returned slugs/ids when filtering or updating feature requests by status,' which tells the agent this is a prerequisite lookup for list_feature_requests or update_feature_request. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly or stating when not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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