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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful behavioral fact that this is an aggregation call returning many section types in one shot, plus that omitted `include` returns everything. It does not mention pagination, size limits, or behavior when a linked section is missing, which keeps it below a 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 the core verb and the enumerated return payload, then usage routing, then parameter notes. The long section list is dense but each item is informative; it is slightly heavier than strictly necessary, but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return contents and does so thoroughly by enumerating every section type. Combined with usage routing and parameter format guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value with a concrete key format example ('ORB-526'), the preference ordering (ticket key over UUID), and the semantics of `include` narrowing sections. That is meaning beyond the schema text.

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 (story with full linked context) and then enumerates exactly which sections are included, so an agent can tell it apart from stride.get_story without opening either schema. The scope distinction is explicit.

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 when-to-use ('Use this before implementing a story so you have the complete spec') and names the alternatives it supersedes ('prefer it over multiple get_story / list_* calls'). The agent has a clear routing rule.

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