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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the GET endpoint path and the shape of returned fields, which is useful context, but nothing about pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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?

A compact two-sentence block that front-loads the resource and return fields, then tacks on the usage hint and endpoint. No wasted text, though the raw endpoint string adds little for an agent.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the returned fields (id, name, order, kind, default flag) is genuinely necessary and present. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is essentially complete, missing only minor operational details.

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 100% schema description coverage, the single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (it never mentions project_id), 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?

The description names the specific resource (task statuses of a project) and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, order, kind, default flag), so an agent knows exactly what it yields. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fieldwire_list_tasks.

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 sentence 'Use the id as status_id on tasks' implies usage context, linking this lookup to task creation/updates, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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