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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it names the required "effort" scope, identifies the HTTP endpoint, and explains pagination via next_offset. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, so it stops short of exhaustive.

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?

The description is four short sentences, front-loads the resource definition, and then gives only the scope, endpoint, and return/pagination details. Every sentence carries operational value with no wasted prose.

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?

For a read-only list tool with rich schema documentation and safety annotations, the description covers the required scope, endpoint, pagination, and top-level return fields. It does not describe the shape of individual effort items, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 100% and every parameter is already documented, including offset as the previous reply's next_offset. The description repeats that pagination mapping but adds no new meaning about filtering, sorting, or the other optional parameters, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: list efforts, then clarifies that efforts are expenses and services recorded against projects. This is clear enough to understand the domain object, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as list_services or list_working_hours.

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 description only gives an implied usage context by naming the resource and noting the required "effort" scope. It does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_services or list_working_hours, so the guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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