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

With annotations already declaring this a safe read-only operation, the description adds substantial behavioral detail about the return payload: 50 recent occurrences, stack traces, release/environment, 30 days of counts, and source-map-resolved fields. It also tells the agent to read stack_resolved/frames instead of the minified stack, which is valuable behavioral guidance.

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 front-loaded with the return contents, then explains when to use it, then adds the source-map and trace caveats. The three sentences are dense but every one adds useful operational detail.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned. It does so thoroughly, including occurrence count, stack fields, source-map resolution, daily counts, and how to continue with get_trace, leaving little ambiguity for correct invocation.

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?

The single issue_id parameter has 100% schema description coverage and is documented as coming from list_error_issues. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states that this retrieves one error issue in full, including the group, recent occurrences with stack traces, release/environment, and daily counts. It distinguishes the tool as the one for fixing production errors, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_error_issue_brief or list/search_error_issues.

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?

It gives a clear primary use case: 'when asked to fix a production error.' It also tells the agent to use get_trace for occurrences with a trace_id, but does not discuss when to prefer the brief/list/search variants.

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