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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: internal notes and linkedIssueUrl are conditionally populated based on `View Internal Data` permission, and the required API-key scope is named. It stops short of describing not-found/error behavior or how comments are surfaced.

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 identifying action, then the returned payload, then the permission/scope caveats. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what data it can rely on.

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 enumerates the returned fields, and the permission/scope constraints are documented. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, missing only failure behavior and whether comments themselves are returned or just a count.

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 100%, so the schema already explains account, shortId and workspace. The description repeats the shortId example format but adds nothing for the multi-account `account` or `workspace` override parameters, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a bug report") plus the exact selector ("by short ID, e.g. BG-99"). This is clearly distinguishable from the list/create/comment siblings without opening a 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?

Usage is only implied by the singular-by-ID framing; there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus fr_list_bugs or fr_get_request, and no prerequisites called out. An agent can infer the case, but nothing routes it explicitly.

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