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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: 'Read' signals a safe, non-mutating operation, ordering ('newest activity first') is disclosed, and the return shape is listed. It omits pagination/truncation behavior beyond the schema's limit field and any auth or connection-state caveats.

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 core verb and ordering, then filters, then return fields. No filler; each clause conveys usable information.

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 returned fields (id, title, state, assignee, priority, due date, cycle, project, url), which is what an agent needs. The remaining gap is routing relative to sibling Linear tools, which is unaddressed.

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 only 17% (only limit is documented), yet the description compensates thoroughly: it explains the team key format (ONC2), that assignee accepts 'me', a name, or an email, the five state values plus named states like 'In Review', and the cycle enum meaning. This adds real semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Read issues from the user's Linear') plus ordering ('newest activity first'). However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools like linear_query, linear_cycles, or create_linear_issue, leaving the agent to guess which Linear tool to pick.

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?

Enumerates that all filters are optional and what each filter accepts, which implies the listing/searching use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion versus the nearby linear_query and linear_cycles tools, which is exactly where confusion is likely.

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