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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral contract: the tool renders nothing at all in unsupported clients, so the agent must fall back rather than retry. It also spells out the credential-default hierarchy and that the panel itself offers project selection when no default exists — context no annotation conveys.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the client-support constraint, then parameter fallbacks. Every sentence carries unique information, though the parenthetical asides make it slightly packed for a quick read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For an all-optional, UI-rendering tool, the description covers the capability gate, the fallback tool, and default resolution for both undocumented IDs — everything needed to invoke it correctly or avoid invoking it.

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 50%, and the description compensates by explaining the two undocumented parameters: projectId falls back to the credential project then to in-panel selection, and workspaceId scopes which projects are offered. Query and includeClosed were already documented in the schema, so no additional detail is needed there.

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 ('Abre un PANEL INTERACTIVO con las issues de un proyecto') and immediately contrasts it with list_issues for clients without MCP Apps support. An agent can distinguish it from list_issues/search_issues without opening the schema.

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 (only in MCP Apps clients: Claude web and desktop), explicit when-not ('en el resto no se renderiza nada y hay que usar list_issues'), and names the alternative tool. It further resolves the two ambiguous optional parameters with default-resolution rules, leaving little to inference.

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