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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool recommends across multiple resource types (MCPs, skills, tools, APIs, frameworks), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose how recommendations are generated, whether they are ranked, or what the output structure looks like. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource types. It earns its place, though it could add a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema. The description is too thin to guide an agent on how to fill parameters like project_context or focus_area, or what the output will contain. Given the complexity (nested objects, multiple resource types), the description is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 5 parameters. It does not explain the meaning of limit, sprint_id, focus_area, project_context, or project_description. The description only mentions 'one sprint in a project roadmap,' which hints at sprint_id but leaves the other parameters' semantics entirely to the schema. This is a significant gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Recommend') and resource ('MCPs, skills, tools, APIs, and frameworks') for a sprint in a project roadmap. It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like find_mcp_for_task or recommend_stack, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself.

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 implies usage context: when you need resource recommendations for a sprint. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like recommend_stack, map_resources_to_project, or find_mcp_for_task. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself offers no routing guidance.

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