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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=false, so the write profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious state information — the sprint lands in PLANNING and requires a separate transition to start — which an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema. It omits what is returned (sprint ID), a minor gap.

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 tight sentences: action first, parameter requirements second, lifecycle consequence and next step last. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

Covers creation semantics, required inputs, date constraints and the resulting state, which is nearly everything needed for a non-destructive create with no output schema. The one omission is whether the new sprint's identifier is returned — important since the agent will need it for the recommended transition_sprint call.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including the ISO8601/midnight-UTC and endDate>=startDate constraints. The description's required/optional recap and '(ISO8601)' tags largely restate the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create a new sprint') and names the scope ('in a Stride project'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like stride.update_sprint, stride.transition_sprint, and stride.list_sprints. No ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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 stride.transition_sprint for the follow-up action of starting the sprint, and the PLANNING-status detail implies this is the entry point of the sprint lifecycle. It doesn't address when to prefer update_sprint over creating a new sprint, but the primary lifecycle guidance is present.

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