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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (full plan markdown content, title, platform file path), which is genuine behavioral value, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when an ordinal id is not found.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines the operation and identifier format, the second defines the return payload and the usage condition. Nothing is padded and the identifier detail is front-loaded.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs: identifier format, payload contents, and when to prefer it. Missing only edge-case behavior such as not-found handling or partial results across multiple ids.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that userStoryOrdinalIds are the numeric part of US-<n> and that multiple stories may be returned. It omits that the input is an array requiring at least one element, but the core semantics are supplied.

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 (Fetch) and resource (user stories) on a named platform, and uniquely clarifies the identifier format as 'ordinal id (numeric part of US-<n>)'. This cleanly separates it from create-user-story and update-user-story among the siblings.

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 an explicit triggering condition: 'Use when plan files are not yet synced to the repo.' That is a real when-to-use rule, but it does not name the alternative (e.g. get-plans-support-file or reading repo plan files) by name, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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