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 useful context by naming the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v2/admin/statuses) and the returned shape, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or the public-vs-admin scope tension hinted by the path.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the resource definition front-loaded and the endpoint reference last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and gives example status values, and pagination is fully covered by the schema. Only the somewhat unusual admin endpoint behind a 'public statuses' listing goes unaddressed, a minor gap.

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%: page, sort, cursor and per_page are all documented in the schema itself (cursor noted as preferred over page). The description contributes no parameter guidance, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the public suggestion statuses'), enumerates concrete examples, and describes the returned fields (ids, colors, open/closed flag). The precise 'statuses' naming separates it from the nearby sibling uservoice_list_status_updates without opening either 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?

The sentence 'Use the ids for filters and status updates' implies downstream usage and positions the tool as a lookup prerequisite, but it never states when to call this instead of the many sibling list tools, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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