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

The description goes significantly beyond the structural hints provided in the annotations by specifying a constraint on the data itself: 'Diagnostic-class signals are excluded by default.' This is a critical piece of operational behavior that a user must know before trusting the results.

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?

The description is highly efficient. It front-loads the scope, immediately lists the capabilities (filtering/search), details the output schema, and provides sibling routing instructions in a compact, linear flow. There is zero wasted space.

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?

Given the complexity of the 8 input filters and the lack of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It defines the data format, the filtering logic, and the specific metadata available in the results, leaving the agent with no gaps in understanding its functionality.

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?

Although the schema coverage is 100%, the description adds high-value semantic information regarding the *output* structure, detailing that 'Each row includes affected_user_count, repeat_user_count, and user_spread.' This context is vital for the agent to correctly interpret the tool's results.

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 purpose—to 'list bugs for the organization'—and immediately differentiates the output format ('flat, one row per deduplicated report'). Crucially, it provides strong routing guidance by stating, 'Prefer list_bug_groups for grouped triage,' which directly addresses the relationship to a sibling tool.

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?

This tool provides excellent usage guidelines by defining when it should *not* be used for certain tasks. The explicit instruction to 'Prefer list_bug_groups for grouped triage' gives the agent a clear decision tree for when to use this specific listing tool versus others in the ecosystem.

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