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

Annotations already mark read-only/open-world/non-destructive; the description adds the auth scope requirement and the language fallback behavior, both useful. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences, first states purpose, second compresses two non-obvious facts. No filler or redundant restating of schema 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?

For a read-only list with full schema documentation and an output schema, the description covers the important prerequisite and a non-obvious localization behavior. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with defaults, ranges and error behavior, so the description's job is minimal. The English fallback sentence largely repeats schema info rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 running stories' rather than all stories. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like stories_list or threads_get, but the 'running stories' wording gives a clear identity.

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?

Gives a hard prerequisite (stories API scope) and implies the use case of listing running stories, but never says when to prefer this over stories_list or threads_get, nor rules out alternatives.

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