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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful return-field semantics (id, name, Jira key, location, whether it 'uploads', default destination) and the connection-state caveat, which goes beyond the annotations but is not exhaustive about ordering or pagination.

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-loads the purpose, then usage, return fields, connection caveat, and workspace behavior. Every sentence contributes to selection or invocation, with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description describes the shape and meaning of returned destinations, including the 'sube' and 'por_defecto' flags. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single workspace_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as accepting a UUID or name. The description only restates that omitting it looks across all workspaces, adding no new syntax or constraint beyond the schema.

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: it returns the possible birthplaces of tasks beyond Secondbrain, namely connected ClickUp lists and Jira projects. The scope and parenthetical examples make it distinguishable from generic task-listing tools like get_tasks or get_boards.

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 says to use it BEFORE create_task or update_task when the user requests a task in Jira/ClickUp and the destination name is unknown. It also explains the omit-workspace behavior and the fallback if a tool is not connected, leaving little to inference.

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