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

The description adds value beyond annotations: it discloses the auth requirement (not in annotations) and the return shape '{state}' (useful since no output schema exists). It restates idempotence, which is already in annotations, but the added auth and return context justify a 4. No contradiction with annotations.

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, zero filler. The core action leads, then prerequisites, then behavior and return shape. 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?

Complete for a simple 3-parameter mutation with no nested objects or output schema: purpose, auth requirement, idempotence, and return value are all covered. The only minor gap is the unspecified behavior if the issue is already open, but 'previously closed' scopes the intended use.

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% — all three parameters (owner, repo, number) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the full burden; 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?

'Reopen a previously closed issue' states a specific verb and resource with a clear state transition. It differentiates itself from sibling gluecron_close_issue (inverse), gluecron_create_issue (new vs existing), and comment_issue without ambiguity.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite — 'Requires authenticated caller with write access' — which tells an agent when it can even attempt the call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use close_issue for the inverse'), but the 'previously closed' scoping implies the appropriate condition.

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