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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the default scope (unresolved only) and the meaning of the `synthetic: true` marker (SDK-captured console lines, not crashes), which is a genuine semantic distinction an agent would otherwise misread. It stops short of noting result limits or pagination.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the most useful information (what the feed contains) before the default-scope and synthetic caveats. No filler, though the opening is a noun phrase rather than an action statement, which slightly weakens the lead.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so well — counts, sparkline window, uptime summary. For a two-optional-param read tool that is largely sufficient, though it omits any mention of ordering, result caps, or what the grouping keys are.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description's 'defaults to unresolved' merely restates the schema default. The `synthetic: true` explanation is about a response field, not an input parameter, so it does not add parameter-level meaning; `include_legacy` and the notion of 'grouping v2' are left entirely to the schema's one-line note.

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 identifies the resource (grouped error issues) and enumerates exactly what comes back — level, status, event/user counts, a 14-day sparkline, uptime summary — which is more informative than the name alone. However it never names a verb and never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_error_issues or get_error_issue_brief, so an agent must infer the split.

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 states the default behavior ('Defaults to unresolved issues only'), which implies this is the unfiltered feed listing, but it never says when to reach for it instead of search_error_issues or get_error_issue. No exclusions, no prerequisites, no guidance on which status value to pick.

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