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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the shape of each returned record and the pagination ceilings (limit max 50), which go beyond structured fields. It doesn't mention total-count/pagination metadata, 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?

Front-loads the purpose and returned fields, then filters, then sibling routing, then defaults — a logical ordering with no filler. It is dense but every clause carries information; only slight compaction would improve it.

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 enumerates returned fields and covers the filterable dimensions plus pagination behavior, which is what an agent needs to call this correctly. A total-count or ordering note would have made it fully complete.

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 only 40%, so the description carries real weight here: it documents search as a title substring filter, names the status enum universe, and supplies the page/limit defaults and the 50 max. Only projectId semantics are left entirely to the schema, so it nearly compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('List architecture decision records') and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, status, publishedVersion, dates) plus the filters. It also distinguishes itself from the get_adr and create_cross_link siblings explicitly, so an agent can tell the three apart without opening schemas.

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 explicit routing: use get_adr for context/decision/consequences text, and create_cross_link with sourceType "adr" to bind an ADR to a story or component. The default and max pagination values tell the agent how to page without guessing.

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