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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are summaries with shortened notes, capped at 20, ordered by recency, and paginated via next_cursor. It does not discuss auth or scoping limits, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior (what, order, page size) and dense with actionable detail; every sentence carries guidance. It is slightly long, but nothing is filler, and the closing pointer to get_feedback earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still covers filtering defaults, pagination, truncation of notes, and the recommended next call. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first try.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the omitted-status default behavior, recommending which assignee value to prefer in team contexts, and stating the condition under which session_id should be used.

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 ('Lists published feedback of one project as summaries') plus ordering ('most recently updated first') and page size ('at most 20 per call'). It is clearly distinguishable from get_feedback, which it names as the full-context sibling.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance for each branch: default status returns open and needs_input, use status "open" for work still to do, use assignee "me"/"unassigned" in a team, use session_id when the developer supplied one. It also routes to get_feedback as the follow-up for detail.

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