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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by enumerating the returned fields (displayId, status, priority, points, labels, acceptance criteria, assignee, sprint/epic, related-entity counts) and by instructing the agent to cite the ticket key in replies.

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 short sentences: purpose, return shape, then usage pointer — front-loaded and with no filler. The "ticket key in replies" instruction is short and actionable rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden by listing the fields returned, and single-parameter scope keeps things simple. The only softness is "related-entity counts", which stays vague about what is counted (comments? links? defects?).

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 schema already says ticket key is preferred. The description reinforces this with a concrete example ("ORB-526") and repeats the UUID alternative, adding a small amount of recognition value for an agent parsing user input.

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 ("Fetch a single Stride story") and names both accepted identifier forms. It is distinguishable from list_stories/search_stories by the word "single", but it never mentions the nearest sibling, stride.get_story_context, so an agent must infer the boundary between them.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule: "Use before stride.update_story_status so you know the current state." That is real when-to-use guidance with a named tool. It stops short of exclusions — nothing says when to prefer get_story_context or search_stories instead.

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