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 covered. The description adds useful shape information (bounded to 3 results, each with a fit rationale and tier), but says nothing about determinism, ranking basis, or behavior when no story fits.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the input condition front-loaded ahead of the output contract. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 a 100%-covered single parameter, an output schema carrying return structure, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is still needed: the result count cap and that each suggestion includes a fit rationale and tier. Only minor gaps remain around ranking or empty-result behavior.

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% and there is only one parameter, whose schema text already spells out 'stack, goal, recent TODOs/problems'. The description's 'stack, what you're building, recent problems' is a near-verbatim restatement rather than added semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (suggest) plus resource (worklore stories) and a clear scope qualifier (up to 3, based on a project description, with rationale and tier). It reads distinctly from siblings like search_stories or get_story, but never names an alternative to anchor the distinction.

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 trigger condition is implied clearly ('given a short description of the current project'), so an agent can infer when this fits. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative such as search_stories for agents who already know what they want.

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