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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuine behavioral context: it explains that counts are current, that closing a sprint can move unfinished stories, and why COMPLETED sprints carry storiesAtClose/doneStoriesAtClose with nulls when unrecorded. That is real interpretation guidance not derivable from annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then the filter, then the more subtle return-value caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the return-field enumeration is dense and could be tightened.

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 correctly spends effort describing the return shape (name, status, goal, dates, story counts, plus close-time counts). The main gap is pagination behavior and how status omission affects results, but the core contract is well covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: it documents the status filter's meaning and enumerates values (redundant with the schema enum) and implies projectId via "in a Stride project". Pagination parameters (page, limit) are never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("List sprints in a Stride project") and names the supported filter, so an agent can immediately grasp the operation. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like stride.get_sprint or stride.get_sprint_metrics, but the list-vs-get distinction is implicit in the verb.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool lists sprints and filters by status. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over stride.get_sprint (single sprint detail) or stride.get_sprint_metrics, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid projectId.

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