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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the 200-story inline cap, and that for COMPLETED sprints counts.stories/done and inline stories reflect only what remains after closing moved unfinished work out, with totals null when unrecorded. That is high-value disclosure beyond 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?

Front-loads purpose and return shape, then the sibling pointer, then the caveat about completed-sprint counts. Dense but every sentence conveys needed information; 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, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and clarifying count semantics and the inline-story cap. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing besides the ID format nuance.

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?

There is one parameter (sprintId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its expected format or where to obtain it. The parameter name is self-evident, so this is a minor but real gap rather than a fatal one.

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 (fetch) and resource (sprint) plus what is returned: name, status, goal, dates, and an inline array of compact stories. It explicitly distinguishes itself from stride.get_story, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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 deep story reads to stride.get_story ('Use stride.get_story for full story details') and explains the completed-sprint case. The alternative and the condition selecting it are both stated.

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