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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return envelope { count, next_skip, items } and the pagination contract, which the agent needs to iterate correctly.

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?

Four dense clauses, all front-loaded: resource and fields first, then return shape, then paging, then lookup/filter modes. Telegraphic style but every sentence carries information; nothing is repeated for padding.

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 six optional parameters, a nested filters object, and no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: it describes the response envelope and the paging loop, which the schema cannot. Only the absence of filterable-field lists and sortable-field guidance keeps it short of full completeness.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the skip/next_skip linkage and the MongoDB-style query format. The description restates those points rather than adding new semantics such as which fields are sortable or which filter keys exist for statuses, so 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?

Identifies the resource precisely (custom statuses for projects and similar records) and enumerates the key fields returned (title, type, entityType), plus the endpoint GET /statuses. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' and doesn't name a confusable sibling, but the resource distinction against list_projects/list_custom_fields is clear.

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 operational guidance on how to use the modes it supports — pass id to read a single record, next_skip for the next page, exact-match filters vs a MongoDB-style query. It does not say when to prefer this over the other list tools (e.g., list_custom_fields or list_projects), so selection guidance is only implied by the resource name.

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