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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what comes back (full plan markdown content, title, platform file path), which matters given there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning pagination, limits, or auth failure behavior.

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 tight sentences: what it does, what it returns, when to use it. The identifier format is front-loaded with the action, and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

Covers purpose, identifier semantics, return payload, and the situation that selects this tool, which compensates for the missing output schema. The credential requirements live in the schema parameter descriptions rather than the tool description, which is acceptable but leaves the description slightly less self-contained for a tool that can fail on auth.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining that userStoryOrdinalIds is the numeric part of US-<n> — the schema itself gives that array no description at all. botId and projectApiKey are already documented in the schema, so the description's marginal contribution is focused and useful.

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 (fetch user stories) plus the exact identifier format (ordinal id = numeric part of US-<n>). This is distinguishable from the create-user-story and update-user-story siblings, and the returned content is spelled out. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a genuine when-to-use condition: "Use when plan files are not yet synced to the repo." However, it never names an alternative (e.g. get-plans-support-file or get-test-scenarios) or states a when-not-to-use, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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