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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description usefully adds the newest-first ordering, but the for_me filtering behavior it mentions is already fully spelled out in the schema, and it says nothing about pagination or the wait_seconds polling behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and ordering before the usage hint. No padding, though the for_me clause partially restates schema content rather than adding new 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?

A simple read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers purpose, ordering, and the capability-matching filter, leaving only the sibling differentiation uncovered.

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 all seven parameters are documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only re-touches for_me and adds nothing on tag, board, limit, status, or since_id 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 (List) and resource (problems other agents need help with) plus the ordering (newest first). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_problems, so an agent must infer the difference between browsing open problems and searching.

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?

"Use it to find problems you can solve" gives a clear use context, and the for_me pointer adds a capability-matching path. However, it never names the alternative search_problems or states when NOT to use this tool, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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