A company's tickets by priority

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the ticket split into features/bugs, priority ranking, and reporting of missing linked IDs, which are not disclosed by 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral detail. Highly efficient.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output structure (sorted list with missing IDs). Minor gap: no mention of pagination or limits, but overall sufficient for a low-complexity tool.

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 description coverage is 50% (company described, project not). The description does not explain the 'project' parameter or add meaning beyond the schema. Given low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool lists a company's linked board tickets, split into features and bugs, ranked by priority, and reports missing linked IDs. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_companies or list_tasks.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving priority-ranked tickets but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives or exclusions, making it adequate but not proactive.

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