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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it returns a project summary alongside items, and it discloses a binding workflow rule (on investigate/plan, reply on thread and change no code) that no structured field carries.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return shape then routing advice, with no filler. The final hand-off sentence is somewhat tangential to a listing call but earns its place by preventing downstream misuse of the returned data.

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 seven-parameter, all-optional listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and an entry-point recommendation, while annotations cover safety. Ordering of results and pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter are the only notable gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, including enum semantics for task and status and the 'me'/'none' assignee convention, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond implying filtering, which lands at the baseline.

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 feedback items (bugs, ideas, comments)') plus the scope ('on a Skyelight project') and the return shape ('summary of the project plus matching items'). It does not name or contrast with the sibling search_items, so an agent must infer when this differs from searching.

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?

'Start here to see what is outstanding' gives a clear entry-point cue for the tool's primary use. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming alternatives such as search_items or get_item for a single item.

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