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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavior beyond that — resolution logic for ticket keys, relevance ranking with title weighted first, and the fact that results carry a displayId that should be used to reference stories. It stops short of describing pagination or what happens on a zero-hit or ambiguous query.

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?

Core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, then modes, then filter semantics, then the routing pointer to the sibling. Dense but every sentence earns its place; the only mild redundancy is restating status enum values already in the schema.

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 usefully discloses the key returned field (displayId) and result ordering, and it fully covers the required projectId/query contract. Minor gaps remain around limit defaults/pagination behavior and truncated-result handling.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully expands on `query` (ticket key/UUID vs free-text) and clarifies the status-vs-stageId split for column filtering. Some of the status wording duplicates the schema description, which keeps it from a 5.

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 (search) and resource (a project's stories), and unpacks the two internal modes — exact ticket-key/UUID resolution vs relevance-ranked free-text over title+description. A reader can distinguish it from stride.list_stories 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?

Gives concrete triggering utterances ("tell me about ORB-526", "find the story about X") and names the alternative with the condition that selects it: "For filtered listing use stride.list_stories." It also points to stride.list_workflow_stages as the source of valid column names.

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