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

Annotations already flag this as a non-destructive mutation, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: rate limits (10/hour, 40/day per address), the signature requirement using the review Ed25519 key, and refusal rules for PII, secrets, links, and security reports. This is exactly the kind of consequence and constraint disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded and every clause carries real information (JSON shape, signing, privacy, security redirect, rate limits). It loses a point for being a single dense run-on block where the embedded JSON spec is hard to parse in prose form.

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 never says what comes back (issue URL or id, confirmation), which an agent would want after filing. Everything else an agent needs to invoke it correctly — body contract, signing, limits, refusals — is present.

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 100%, but the schema only says body is 'JSON text'. The description supplies the entire effective contract for body — kind, about, listing, title (120 char cap), text (1,200 cap), called, calledAt — and clarifies that key/signature are the base64url Ed25519 pair over those exact bytes. This is far more than the schema provides.

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 (files an issue) plus the destination (/issues/) and its public, readable-by-anyone nature. It also enumerates the subject matter (site bugs, API, MCP server, listing corrections) so an agent can tell it apart from contact and submit_review.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (bug on site/letme.dev/API/MCP, wrong score or fact) and when-not (never security problems, which go to /.well-known/security.txt; such filings are refused). It names the alternative channel directly rather than leaving routing to inference.

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