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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), yet the description still adds real value: the visibility scoping rule, the exact return shape ('only each project id and name'), and a prompt-injection warning that returned text is untrusted data and must not be followed. That last point is behaviorally significant and appears nowhere in the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the scope, then return shape and routing, then the security caveat. No sentence is filler and each 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?

For a no-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return fields, the visibility scope, alternative tools for related data, and a data-trust warning. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so page, page_size and query are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, 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 with scope qualifiers ('List active Ybug projects whose feedback you can access') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns only id and name. An agent can tell it apart from get_project and list_tags without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives with conditions: get_project for statuses/priorities/types, list_tags for the account tag catalog. Combined with the stated scope ('active projects whose feedback you can access'), the when-to-use picture is complete.

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