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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds genuinely new context: the returned payload is limited to id and name, and the returned text is untrusted data that must not be treated as instructions. It stops short of describing pagination or result-ordering behavior, which matters for a paged list tool.

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?

Two tight sentences: capability and return scope front-loaded, then the sibling routing, then a one-line untrusted-data warning. No filler, and the most important constraint leads.

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 correctly compensates by stating exactly what is returned (id and name) and by warning about untrusted content. Annotations carry the safety profile. The only gap is paging/ordering behavior, which is left entirely to the 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%, so page, query and page_size are fully documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. that query matches names) beyond what the schema already states.

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 active Ybug projects whose feedback you can access') plus the exact scope of what is returned ('only each project id and name'). This clearly distinguishes it from get_project, which returns statuses/priorities/types, and from list_tags.

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: use this tool for the project id/name inventory, use get_project for statuses/priorities/types, use list_tags for the account tag catalog. The condition selecting each alternative is named, not implied.

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