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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add context. It adds the useful equivalence to list_error_issues, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or the limit cap already implied by the schema.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the searchable-fields list is front-loaded and the list_error_issues relationship follows immediately.

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?

The return-value shape is partially handled by reference to list_error_issues, and there is no output schema to demand more. However, with 5 optional parameters and 20% schema coverage, the silent handling of status and limit leaves the definition incomplete for a filtering tool.

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 20% — just the query parameter is documented — so the description has to compensate. It does add meaning for release ("first or last seen in") and confirms query targets title/culprit, but status and limit get no explanation in either place.

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 (Find) and resource (issues), plus the exact fields searched (title/culprit, platform, release). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_error_issues by saying it returns the same rows, filtered, so an agent can pick between the two without opening schemas.

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?

Mentioning that it returns the same rows as list_error_issues implicitly frames the choice (filter vs. list-all), but the description never states when to prefer this over get_error_issue or when filters are required. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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