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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'Any member may read them' tells the agent no elevated permissions are required, which is not encoded in the 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 short sentences, each contributing distinct information: the column model, the JQL identifier, and the access rule. Front-loaded with the resource definition and free of padding.

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 must sketch the return shape, and it does: name, kind, option values with colours, and the customfield identifier. That is sufficient for an agent to know what it will get back, though it does not say whether the result is a flat list or grouped by field type.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage and an inline example ('CRM'), so the schema carries the weight. The description only implies that results are scoped to one project and adds no format or lookup guidance for projectKey, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource (the columns a project keeps about its issues) and enumerates what each entry contains: name, kind, option list with colours, and the customfield_… identifier. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling mutators set_project_field and delete_project_field, but the framing is unambiguously read-only enumeration.

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 mention of the customfield_… name 'for searching by JQL' hints that this is the tool to call before building a JQL query, but it never states when to use this versus set_project_field, list_projects, or list_project_presets, and offers no explicit exclusions.

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