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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default 'live work only' filter, the fact that includeClosed is ignored when stateCategory is passed, and the fallback to the credential's workspace when workspaceId is omitted.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the default-exclusion rule and the override come first, followed by stateCategory semantics, then delivery/workspace. A couple of clauses repeat schema text (the includeClosed parenthetical) and the run-on structure is heavy, but nearly every sentence adds 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?

For a 6-parameter, no-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering semantics, defaults, and credential scoping well enough to call it correctly. It does not describe the shape of returned issue records or pagination, which is a modest residual gap.

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 only 17%, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it enumerates stateCategory values with meanings ('unstarted'/'backlog' = sin empezar, 'started' = en curso, etc.), defines delivery's three modes and its default, and clarifies workspaceId's fallback. Only teamId is left entirely unexplained.

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+resource ('Lista issues') and the visibility scope ('visibles para la key') with optional team/project filters. It never names the obvious alternative sibling (search_issues), so an agent must infer whether to list or search, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly explains the default exclusion of completed/canceled work, how to override it (includeClosed=true or stateCategory), and what delivery='own'/'delivered'/'all' means in context of a product projectId. It also routes to list_workspaces for workspaceId. The missing piece is guidance on when to prefer search_issues over this tool.

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