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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: issues are deduplicated across sessions, ranked by severity, include session hit counts and first/last seen times, and callers also receive open/in-progress/resolved counts. This meaningfully clarifies the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then efficiently adds the most important behavioral details and return-value highlights. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, all 8 optional parameters fully documented in the schema, and a description covering the conceptual output and deduplication behavior, the tool description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. No critical information is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description mentions severity ranking and deduplication, which indirectly connects to the sort and severity parameters, but it does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List issues the AI found while analyzing session recordings') and differentiates the tool from siblings like get_issue and update_issue_status by describing the collection-level, deduplicated, severity-ranked nature of the output. This makes it unambiguous what the tool does and how it differs from nearby tools.

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?

The description clearly implies this is the tool to use when you need to browse or query detected issues, including aggregate counts and per-issue impact. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_issue for single-issue detail or update_issue_status for status changes, so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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