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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: case inclusion rules (story in sprint plus directly linked cases), 'most-recent executed result' as the state source, and the top-10 priority ordering. It stops short of noting cost/latency for an aggregate call, so not a full 5.

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-loaded with purpose and scope, then the output breakdown, then sibling routing — no filler. The single long sentence with nested lists is dense but every clause carries information.

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, so the description must describe return content, and it does so precisely (metric families, ordering, cap of 10, coverage definition). Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the result is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (sprintId) with 100% schema coverage that already says 'Sprint UUID (stride.list_sprints)'. The description repeats that provenance without adding format or validation detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (test health of ONE sprint) and enumerates the concrete outputs: case counts, pass/fail/blocked/skipped/never-ran breakdown, top-10 failed/blocked by priority, and story coverage. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_sprint_metrics and get_test_run.

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 for test health, stride.get_sprint_metrics for delivery metrics (points, velocity), stride.get_test_run for a single run's results. The 'ONE sprint' scoping and required sprintId source (list_sprints) are stated up front.

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