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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the result is conditional on roadmap.features, and specific extra fields (priority, status, owner, risk, goal, initiative, health, roll-ups, holidays) only appear when features are switched on. That variable-shape disclosure is genuinely useful and not derivable from the schema.

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?

Content is front-loaded: what is returned comes first, then the conditional shape. It is a dense enumeration rather than wasted prose, though the packing of feature-conditional fields into one long sentence costs some readability.

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, the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining what comes back, and does so thoroughly including conditional extras. The remaining gap is the absence of guidance on when this is the right call versus the sibling listing/summary tools.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage already telling the agent it is a roadmap id from list_roadmaps. The description adds no constraint, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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?

The description names the specific resource (a roadmap) and enumerates its contents — lanes, rows, items, milestones, checklists, progress, dependencies — plus the key value proposition of returning ids other tools need. It is not a tautology, but it never states the verb explicitly and does not contrast itself with list_roadmaps, leaving the sibling distinction implicit.

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 'with the ids the other tools need' implies this is the entry point before calling downstream tools, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not (e.g. when to prefer export_roadmap_summary or list_roadmaps), so the agent must infer the routing.

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