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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: statuses come back in workflow order, statuses carry a 'category' with an enumerated meaning, tags are omitted, and it warns that returned text is untrusted data that must not be followed as instructions.

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 action, then the mapping and the tag exclusion, ending with the safety note. The middle sentence is dense but every clause carries usable information; nothing is filler, though it could be split for readability.

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 the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and it does so well: entities carry id and name, statuses additionally carry a category from a known set, and ordering is specified. Combined with the safety note, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this tool.

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 there is a single parameter whose description already states it is the project's public code, e.g. from list_projects. The prose adds nothing about the parameter, 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+resource ('Fetch one Ybug project') and scopes it further to its statuses, priorities and types. It is clearly distinguishable from list_projects (plural), list_feedback and get_feedback, so an agent can route without opening a 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 description explains what the returned id/name values feed into (filters on list_feedback, arguments on update_feedback) and explicitly excludes tags, pointing to list_tags instead. It gives clear context and one exclusion, though it never states when to prefer this over list_projects or why you'd fetch a project before a feedback call.

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