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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds genuine context they cannot: the compact return shape (id, name, status, gateType, criteriaCount, enabledCriteriaCount, configState) and the crucial semantic that unconfigured gates 'fail CLOSED' so their status is not a breach. That is a behavioral caveat an agent could easily get wrong. It falls short of 5 only because it omits pagination/ordering behavior for the list itself.

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 action and tightly packed via em-dashes; every clause carries information (purpose, return shape, alternative, semantics caveat, limits). Slightly dense for a scanner, but no filler sentences.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so explicitly, plus the configState interpretation caveat and result-size limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly and read the response correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, and limit carries minimum/maximum/default constraints there. The description's 'Default limit 20, max 50' largely restates the schema rather than adding syntax or guidance, so it adds only marginal value over structured fields.

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 quality gates in a Stride project') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling read tool stride.get_quality_gate by scope. An agent can tell list vs. detail apart without opening either 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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'use stride.get_quality_gate for the full criteria + recent evaluation history.' It also tells the agent how to interpret a NOT_CONFIGURED/NOT_ENFORCED status, which prevents a misdiagnosis downstream.

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